R v Tae

The defendant, Mr Akutino Tae, a sergeant-at-arms of the Tribesman Motorcycle gang, pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to Mr Joshua Masters, the president of the Killer Beez gang. The Crown submitted that there were four aggravating features to the offending: extreme violence, use of a weapon, serious injury, and gang warfare. The defendant's counsel agreed that a starting point of 11 years’ imprisonment was appropriate but submitted that the offending fell between the uppermost end of band two and the low to middle range of band three. The court accepted that the offending had at least three aggravating features and that the appropriate starting point was 11 years’ imprisonment.

The court considered the aggravating features of the offending, the defendant's criminal history, his remorse, his strong family support and young child, the trauma he suffered at a young age which appears to have got him off track in his life, his responsibility in calming potential gang tensions and turning himself in, as well as his willingness to engage in rehabilitative courses on remand and in a restorative justice process. The court also gave the defendant a discount of 25 per cent for turning himself in and offering to plead guilty to this charge at the earliest opportunity. The court sentenced the defendant to seven years’ imprisonment for the offence of wounding with intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

The court did not impose a minimum period of imprisonment as it considered that the period of imprisonment imposed would be sufficient for the purposes of sentencing. The court considered it important that the defendant engages in rehabilitation programmes in prison and, when appropriate, in the community. The court recognised that the defendant is now at an age where he should see the downsides of continued life as a gang member and the upsides of life as a family man. The court emphasised that release on parole is not guaranteed but that the Parole Board will consider reports it has about the defendant's circumstances when he is eligible for parole. If it considers, then, that parole is justified the court would not want its decision, now, to stand in the way of that.