R v Taiaroa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2013-004-13119 [2016] NZHC 2279

THE QUEEN

v

LEWIS HAPI TAIAROA

Hearing: (on the papers)

Counsel:

D G Johnstone for Crown
K W Burroughs for Defendant

Judgment:

27 September 2016

JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 September 2016 at 9.30am pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Counsel:
K W Burroughs, Hamilton

R v TAIAROA [2016] NZHC 2279 [27 September 2016]

[1] On 2 October 2015 I found Mr Taiaroa guilty on one charge of arson following a Judge-alone trial held in September 2015. He was found not guilty on one charge of riotous behaviour and one of assault with a weapon.1

[2] Mr Taiaroa was sentenced on 10 November 2015. A term of 12 months home detention was imposed, subject to a number of special conditions designed to manage his mental health problems.2

[3] Although Mr Taiaroa’s term of home detention has almost been served in full, a probation officer has applied to cancel the sentence of home detention and to substitute one of intensive supervision. The application has been made in order to manage better the mental health concerns that might otherwise manifest themselves once the home detention sentence was completed.

[4] Counsel for the Crown and Mr Taiaroa have conferred. Each informs me that the probation officer’s application can be granted by consent. I am satisfied independently that an order is justified.

[5] I make an order cancelling the sentence of home detention and substitute one of intensive supervision for a period of two years, commencing 9 November 2015 and continuing until 9 November 2017. The terms of which the sentence is imposed are that Mr Taiaroa:

(a) Not possess, consume or use any alcohol or drugs not prescribed to him

(b)Attend a psychological assessment with a Departmental psychologist as directed by a probation officer and complete any treatment and/or counselling as recommended to the satisfaction of a probation officer

(c) Attend and complete an appropriate programme and/or treatment and/or counselling as directed by and to the satisfaction of a probation
officer

1 R v Taiaroa [2015] NZHC 2401.
2 R v Taiaroa [2015] NZHC 2782.

(d)Continue to engage with a mental health provider as directed by a probation officer and attend all scheduled appointments

(e) Not communicate in any way or associate with any co-offender without the prior written approval of a probation officer.

P R Heath J

Delivered at 9.30am on 27 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, heard the case of The Queen v Lewis Hapi Taiaroa. Mr. Taiaroa had been convicted of arson and sentenced to 12 months of home detention, which was to be managed under certain conditions to address his mental health issues. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of home detention should be cancelled and replaced with a sentence of intensive supervision. This application was made by a probation officer to better manage Mr. Taiaroa's mental health concerns once his home detention period was complete. Both the Crown and Mr. Taiaroa's counsel agreed that the application could be granted by consent. The judge was satisfied that the application was justified, leading to the substitution of the original sentence with one of intensive supervision for a period of two years. This decision was made with specific conditions aimed at managing Mr. Taiaroa's mental health and preventing any further criminal activity.

The court considered the necessity of changing Mr. Taiaroa's sentence to intensive supervision to ensure his mental health needs were adequately managed. The conditions imposed included abstaining from alcohol and non-prescribed drugs, undergoing psychological assessments, and engaging in appropriate treatment programs. Additionally, Mr. Taiaroa was required to maintain contact with a mental health provider and avoid associating with co-offenders without permission. The court's decision was based on the probation officer's recommendation and the need to address Mr. Taiaroa's mental health issues to prevent reoffending. The intensive supervision was seen as a more effective means of ensuring Mr. Taiaroa's compliance with the court's conditions and his rehabilitation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	(on the papers)
Counsel:	D G Johnstone for Crown K W Burroughs for Defendant
Judgment:	27 September 2016