Legal Research
Cases
R v Soames

R v Soames

Case [2023] NZHC 1969 26 July 2023

Victim Impact Statement

Aggravating Factors

Mitigating Factors

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF SENTENCE INDICATION

GIVEN TO CO-DEFENDANT MATANGIRAU CUFF IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL CO-DEFENDANT CUFF HAS BEEN SENTENCED. REFER [40] AND

FOOTNOTE 12. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2021-072-000048

[2023] NZHC 1969

THE KING

v

TAIMANA SOAMES

Hearing: 26 July 2023

Appearances:

J Hamilton for the Crown S Cassidy for Mr Soames

Sentencing:

26 July 2023

(REDACTED) SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Hamilton Legal, Hamilton Counsel: S Cassidy, Barrister, Auckland

R v SOAMES [2023] NZHC 1969 [26 July 2023]

[1] Mr Soames, you were one of 11 defendants who went to trial on charges arising out of the rioting at Waikeria Prison over the New Year 2020/2021 period. Six of your co-defendants pleaded guilty to amalgamated charges prior to the trial.

[2] During the trial seven defendants pleaded guilty to amalgamated charges and counsel for a further defendant sought and was granted leave to withdraw. That left three of you who defended the charges through to verdict.

[3] You were found guilty of 16 out of 21 charges for offending that spanned a period from 29 December 2020 to 2 January 2021 as follows:

(a)arson (x 2);1

(b)arson (with a danger to life) (x 3);2

(c)burglary (x 7);3

(d)assault with a weapon (x 2);4

(e)riotous damage;5 and

(f)rioting.6

Factual background

[4] You were in custody on remand (because of the absence of a suitable bail address) in the High Security Facility at Waikeria Prison at the time of the riot.

[5] On the morning of 29 December 2020 you were in a group of 21 prisoners in one of the exercise yards, yard 116. An incident occurred in that yard when one of the prisoners refused to return a disposable razor (or razors) to a Corrections officer.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 267(2) and 66. Maximum penalty: 7 years’ imprisonment.
2      Sections 267(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 231(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
4      Sections 202C(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 5 years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 90. Maximum penalty: 7 years’ imprisonment.
6      Section 87. Maximum penalty: 2 years’ imprisonment.

Several other prisoners offered that prisoner their support. You were not one of those prisoners. When the Corrections officer told those in the yard they would all be returned to their cells early if the razors were not surrendered, the Corrections officer was told by some that they were not going anywhere and were ready for a fight. Eventually one razor was handed in, the situation was defused, and tensions settled. You and the other prisoners in the yard were then permitted to remain there for the usual period.

[6] The Crown case was that later in the morning a group of nine of the 21 prisoners set in train the events that led to the riot which proceeded over a period…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Soames

Details

AGLC: R v Soames [2023] NZHC 1969
Case: [2023] NZHC 1969
Decision Date: 26 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Soames, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, involves the sentencing of Taimana Soames for his involvement in a riot at Waikeria Prison. Soames was found guilty of multiple charges including arson, burglary, assault, and rioting. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence considering the nature and extent of the offences, the impact on victims, and Soames’ personal background and potential for rehabilitation.

The court assessed the seriousness of Soames' involvement in the riot, which included damaging prison property, setting fires, and assaulting corrections officers. The Crown argued for a significant starting point due to the violence, extensive damage, and risk to life caused by the offences. Soames' counsel, however, argued for a sentence that reflected his role in the events and his personal circumstances. The court considered the sentences of Soames' co-offenders who had already been sentenced, ensuring consistency and fairness.

Taking into account Soames' personal background, including a history of violence and trauma, the court applied a discount to the starting point. The final sentence was determined to be eight years and ten months in prison, with various sentences on individual charges to be served concurrently. The judge emphasized the need for accountability and deterrence while also considering Soames' potential for rehabilitation and support from his family.

Orders