R v Taikato - [2018] NZHC 77

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2016-070-2727 [2018] NZHC 77

THE QUEEN

v

SHAUN MERRO TAIKATO

Hearing: 8 February 2018

Appearances:

A Pollett for Crown
W T Nabney for Defendant

Sentence:

8 February 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v TAIKATO [2018] NZHC 77 [8 February 2018]

[1] Mr Taikato, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to charges of kidnapping (x 2), attempted kidnapping, reckless use of a firearm, aggravated robbery (x 2) and being in unlawful possession of a firearm.

[2] The most serious charges are those of kidnapping and aggravated robbery. Both of those charges carry maximum sentences of 14 years imprisonment. The charge of attempted kidnapping carries a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment. The charge of reckless use of a firearm carries a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment, and the charge of being in unlawful possession of a firearm carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment.

The charges

[3] The charges arose out of a series of events that occurred between May and June

2016. They are all detailed in a summary of facts that you agreed with at the time you entered your guilty pleas.

[4] All but one of the charges relate to a series of events that occurred in the early hours of the morning of 28 May 2016. On that date you were in the vicinity of the McDonald’s hamburger restaurant situated on the corner of Cameron Road and Eleventh Avenue in Tauranga. The three victims were sitting in a car outside the restaurant eating food they had purchased in the restaurant. Whilst they were doing so, you approached the vehicle and got into the back seat. You were carrying a firearm that appears to have been a .22 sawn-off rifle. You pointed this at the driver of the vehicle and told him “we can do this the easy way or the hard way”. You then told the occupants of the vehicle to hand over all their cash and everything they had.

[5] At this point the person that was in the back seat of the vehicle tried to open the door and get out. You punched him in the head and told him to shut the door and told the driver to begin driving. The driver began to drive away and, as he did so, he attempted to drive his vehicle into a light in the area of the McDonald’s restaurant. At that point you asked him if he wanted you to shoot him. You then told him to drive out the back entrance of the restaurant. As the vehicle left the restaurant, the person in the back seat took the opportunity to escape after punching you. This left you alone in the back seat of the vehicle and the other two victims in the front seat.

[6] You then began on a lengthy drive around the streets of Tauranga. You told the people…

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 Taikato

Details

AGLC: R v Taikato [2018] NZHC 77
Case: [2018] NZHC 77
Decision Date: 8 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shaun Merro Taikato was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand following his guilty pleas to multiple charges, including kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, reckless use of a firearm, aggravated robbery, and being in unlawful possession of a firearm. The court had to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the gravity of the offenses and the mitigating factors presented by the defense. The starting point for the offenses was set at six and a half years, reflecting the premeditation, use of a dangerous weapon, and the duration and impact of the crimes. However, a discount was applied for the defendant's young age and his otherwise clean criminal record, as well as his guilty pleas, though the court was skeptical about his expressed remorse. The final sentence imposed was six years imprisonment, to be served concurrently.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of both aggravating and mitigating factors. The use of a dangerous, illegally modified firearm and the prolonged ordeal inflicted on the victims highlighted the severity of the offenses. However, the defendant's relatively young age, lack of prior criminal history, and his role as a caring father were taken into account as mitigating factors. The court also noted the defendant's attempt to withdraw his guilty pleas, which undermined his claim of genuine remorse. In the end, the court balanced these considerations to arrive at a sentence of six years imprisonment, which it deemed appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders