Legal Research
Cases
R v Taiaroa

R v Taiaroa

Case [2015] NZHC 2401 2 October 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF CORRECTIONS' OFFICERS REFERRED TO IN THESE REASONS FOR VERDICTS AND ANY WHOSE NAMES WERE MENTIONED DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OR IN OTHER DOCUMENTATION FILED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2013-004-13119 [2015] NZHC 2401

THE QUEEN

v

LEWIS HAPI TAIAROA

Hearing: 14, 15, 17 and 29 September 2015

Counsel:

D G Johnstone for Crown
K W Burroughs for Defendant

Judgment:

2 October 2015

REASONS FOR VERDICTS OF HEATH J

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

R v TAIAROA [2015] NZHC 2401 [2 October 2015]

CONTENTS

(a) Judge-alone trial – Reasons for verdicts [25]

(b) Onus and standard of proof [26]

(c) Accused giving evidence [28]

(d) Separate trials [29]

(e) Sympathy and prejudice [30]

Verdicts [1] Background [7] Mr Taiaroa’s role in the riot [22] Legal requirements

Analysis
(a) Riotous behaviour

(i) The charge [31]

(ii) Assessment of Mr Taiaroa as a witness [34]

(iii) Application by Crown to call rebuttal evidence [39]

(iv) The defence of compulsion [50]

(b) Arson

(i) The charge [62]

(ii) Legal principles [64]

(iii) Outcome [67]

(c) Assault with a weapon

(i) The charge [75]

(ii) Visual identification evidence – the statutory scheme [78]

(iii) The admissibility inquiry [85]

(iv) Is Officer Z’s recognition evidence reliable? [100]

Verdicts

[1] Mr Taiaroa has been charged with three offences arising out of a riot that took place at Spring Hill Correctional Facility (Springhill prison) on 1 June 2013. Other participants in the riot have already been dealt with by the Court.

[2] On 14 September 2015, Mr Taiaroa pleaded not guilty to charges of arson, riotous behaviour and assault with a weapon. The trial took place before me, sitting without a jury. While, initially, Mr Taiaroa had elected trial by jury, he was permitted to change that election on 6 June 2015.1

[3] The charges of riotous behaviour and arson are brought on the basis of the

visual evidence garnered from CCTV footage. Mr Taiaroa’s defence to the riotous

1 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 53.

behaviour charge is compulsion.2 He denies voluntarily participating in the arson, and defends the arson charge on the basis that what he can be seen doing in the images is insufficient to prove that he assisted or encouraged another person to commit arson. Compulsion is not a defence to a charge of arson.3

[4] Mr Taiaroa denies assaulting members of the Advanced Control and Restraint team with a metal volleyball pole. Identification is in issue. A Corrections’ Officer (whom I will call Officer Z) gave evidence that he recognised Mr Taiaroa as the person wielding that weapon. Officer Z was a member of the Advanced Control and Restraint Team, and was standing next to officers who were using large shields when the assault occurred. Officer Z gave evidence that he recognised Mr Taiaroa, from prior interactions with him at the prison, as the person who used the metal volleyball pole…

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 2401
Case: [2015] NZHC 2401
Decision Date: 2 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lewis Hapi Taiaroa was charged with three offences arising out of a riot that took place at Spring Hill Correctional Facility (Springhill prison) on 1 June 2013. The charges were riotous behaviour, arson and assault with a weapon. Mr Taiaroa pleaded not guilty to all charges. The trial was held before Justice Heath, sitting without a jury. The charges of riotous behaviour and arson were brought on the basis of visual evidence garnered from CCTV footage. The defence of compulsion was raised in relation to the riotous behaviour charge. The defence to the arson charge was that what Mr Taiaroa can be seen doing in the images is insufficient to prove that he assisted or encouraged another person to commit arson. Compulsion is not a defence to a charge of arson. Mr Taiaroa also denied assaulting members of the Advanced Control and Restraint team with a metal volleyball pole. The identification of Mr Taiaroa was in issue. A Corrections' Officer (Officer Z) gave evidence that he recognised Mr Taiaroa as the person wielding the weapon. Justice Heath found Mr Taiaroa guilty of arson but not guilty of riotous behaviour or assault with a weapon. The court held that Mr Taiaroa was one of a group of more than six people who unlawfully damaged property owned by the Department of Corrections. However, the Crown had failed to exclude the reasonable possibility that Mr Taiaroa was compelled to participate in the riot. The court found Mr Taiaroa guilty of arson because he intentionally assisted his fellow inmate to damage property by fire in circumstances where he ought to have known that danger to life was likely to ensue. The court found Mr Taiaroa not guilty of assaulting members of the Advanced Control and Restraint Team with a metal volleyball pole because it could not exclude the reasonable possibility that Officer Z was mistaken in identifying Mr Taiaroa as the perpetrator of the attack.

Orders