R v Taiapa - [2018] NZHC 1815

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2017-016-1092

[2018] NZHC 1815

THE QUEEN

v

ANDRE ROBERT TAIAPA

Hearing:
20 July 2018

(Heard at ROTORUA)

Appearances:

A J Pollett for Crown E A Hall for Defendant

Judgment:

20 July 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v TAIAPA [2018] NZHC 1815 [20 July 2018]

[1] Mr Taiapa, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter. The maximum sentence for that charge is one of life imprisonment.

[2] You pleaded guilty on the basis of a summary of facts with which you agreed at the time you entered your guilty plea. As I will shortly outline, you now resile from aspects of the summary, but the summary forms the basis on which I am required to impose sentence.

The facts

[3] The charge was laid as a result of an incident that occurred on the afternoon of 26 November 2016. You have long been a member of the Porirua Mongrel Mob. In November 2016, you were visiting the East Cape region because of an event that was occurring involving the Mongrel Mob in that region. You were therefore a visitor to the area.

[4] On that day there was a wedding in the area involving members and associates of the Tribesmen gang. Clearly that gang is a rival to the Mongrel Mob as the events of that day demonstrate. These people were in the area for a wedding. The service was to be held in a church not far from the Mongrel Mob headquarters. The function after the service was to be held at the Waihau Bay Fishing Lodge.

[5] The summary records that members of the Mongrel Mob took exception to the presence of the patched Tribesmen members in their area. There was a series of incidents during the afternoon in which the Mongrel Mob stood on the roadway in the vicinity of their headquarters harassing passing motorists. They also sought to harass members of the Tribesmen group who were attending the wedding at the church up the road. I place no significance on that fact for present purposes because there is no suggestion in the summary that you were part of that group.

[6] During the course of the afternoon it appears that some form of agreement was reached between the two groups. The Tribesmen apparently agreed they would not wear their patches whilst in the area. The summary does not record whether you were party to, or knew of, that agreement.

[7] The critical events for present purposes occurred at about 2.30 pm. At that time Mr Don Turei and his brother arrived in the area of the Mongrel Mob headquarters on their way to the reception at the Waihau Bay Fishing Lodge. Other members of their group had passed through the area at about 1 pm, and had been generally harassed by the Mongrel Mob who were on the road. Members of…

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 Taiapa

Details

AGLC: R v Taiapa [2018] NZHC 1815
Case: [2018] NZHC 1815
Decision Date: 20 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Andre Robert Taiapa was sentenced for manslaughter following a motor vehicle incident that resulted in the death of Don Turei. Taiapa, a member of the Porirua Mongrel Mob, pursued and deliberately rammed Turei's motorcycle, causing it to crash and resulting in Turei's death. The incident occurred amid tensions between the Mongrel Mob and the rival Tribesmen gang. Taiapa pleaded guilty to manslaughter based on a summary of facts, though he later contested some aspects of the summary. The court considered various legal issues, including the purposes and principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 2002, the impact on Turei's family, and the aggravating and mitigating factors of Taiapa's offending. Aggravating factors included the deliberate nature of the act, the gang-related motivations, and Taiapa's criminal history. Mitigating factors considered were Taiapa's limited remorse, his offer to engage in restorative justice, and his recent efforts to turn his life around. The court set a starting point of nine years imprisonment, adjusted for mitigating factors to reach a sentence of six years four months imprisonment, with a minimum term of three years two months before parole eligibility. Additionally, Taiapa was disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver's licence for four years post-release.

Orders