R v Taiaroa - [2015] NZHC 2782

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2013-004-13119 [2015] NZHC 2782

THE QUEEN

v

LEWIS HAPI TAIAROA

Hearing: 10 November 2015

Counsel:

D G Johnstone for Crown
K W Burroughs for Defendant

Judgment:

10 November 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J

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

R v TAIAROA [2015] NZHC 2782 [10 November 2015]

[1] Lewis Hapi Taiaroa, you appear for sentence today on one count of arson. I found you guilty on that charge on 2 October 2015, following a Judge-alone trial in September. You were found not guilty on one charge of riotous behaviour and one of assault with a weapon.

[2] The offence was committed during a riot at Spring Hill Correctional Facility on 1 June 2013. My reasons for verdicts1 set out in some detail the events of that day. In short,

(a) You were found not guilty on the charge of riotous behaviour on the grounds that there was a reasonable possibility that you participated in the riot under compulsion.

(b)So far as the assault with a weapon charge was concerned, I found you not guilty because I could not exclude the reasonable possibility that Officer Z was mistaken in identifying you as the perpetrator of that particular assault.

(c) You were found guilty on the arson charge because the defence of compulsion is not available for an offence of that type. If the defence had been available, I would have acquitted you on that charge also.

[3] I do not intend to say much about what happened on the day. The following short summary is taken from my reasons for verdicts.

[4] Because of the large number of security cameras in a prison facility, CCTV footage was available to identify those parts of the riot in which you were said to have participated. With one exception, (the assault with a weapon charge, in respect of which there was no CCTV footage) no question of identification arose.

[5] In the period between your return from the medical office to the yard (at about 10.14am) and 1.00pm there are a number of images that show your
involvement in the riot:

1 R v Taiaroa [2015] NZHC 2401.

(a) At about 11.10am you were seen as one of three prisoners who place the metal volleyball pole against the staff base window. It is used as a “battering ram”. Two prisoners appear to be wielding the pole, one of whom was you.

(b)Between 11.11am and 11.59am you were seen at various times (but not continuously) striking the staff base window and surrounds with lengths of wood and a metal object.

(c) You were seen carrying property from rooms in the staff base into the prison yard.

(d)You were seen picking up toilet rolls and carrying them towards a fellow prisoner, who is in the process of fuelling a fire in a room identified as the seat of the fire.

(e) You were seen using a telephone in…

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 Taiaroa

Details

AGLC: R v Taiaroa [2015] NZHC 2782
Case: [2015] NZHC 2782
Decision Date: 10 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Taiaroa, the defendant was sentenced for one count of arson following a riot at Spring Hill Correctional Facility on 1 June 2013. The High Court of New Zealand considered the legal issues regarding the defendant's involvement in the riot and his participation in the arson. The defendant was acquitted of charges of riotous behaviour and assault with a weapon, but found guilty of arson due to the inapplicability of the defence of compulsion for such an offence. The court found that the defendant participated in the riot under compulsion, believing threats of immediate grievous bodily harm would be carried out against him.

The court weighed the defendant's limited involvement in the arson and the compelling circumstances under which he acted. The defendant's involvement with the fire lasted approximately one minute and thirty seconds, during which he assisted in fuelling the fire. The court found that while the defendant did not believe danger to life was likely to ensue once the fire was lit, an ordinary prudent person in his position should have known that the fire posed a danger to life. The court accepted the defendant's genuine attempts to extricate himself from gang involvement and his mental health concerns as mitigating factors.

Taking into account the defendant's extensive criminal history, mental health issues, and degree of compulsion, the court imposed a sentence of 12 months of home detention. The court determined that this sentence was the least restrictive option that would best serve the defendant's rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The sentence included special conditions, such as attending psychological assessments, completing treatment and counselling programmes, and refraining from communication with other riot participants.

In conclusion, the court sentenced the defendant to 12 months of home detention with special conditions to address his mental health needs and prevent further criminal behaviour. The court expressed hope that the defendant would seize this opportunity to turn his life around and leave his criminal past behind.

Orders