R v Taipeti - [2018] NZHC 1482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE ROTORUA-NUI-Ā-KAHU ROHE

CRI-2017-087-131

[2018] NZHC 1482

THE QUEEN

v

KARANEIHANA TAIPETI

Hearing:
21 June 2018

(Heard at TAURANGA)

Appearances:

R Jenson and O M Salt for Crown

S I Mills (on behalf of W Lawson) for Defendant

Judgment:

21 June 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v TAIPETI [2018] NZHC 1482 [21 June 2018]

[1] Mr Taipeti, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty following a sentence indication1 to charges of participating in an organised criminal group,2 discharging a firearm against a law enforcement officer3 and discharging a firearm with intent to injure.4 The maximum sentences on those charges is ten years, 14 years and seven years imprisonment respectively.

[2] You also faced charges of rioting and being in unlawful possession of a firearm. The Crown has offered no evidence on those charges, and I now discharge you on them under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

[3] When you pleaded guilty, convictions were not entered and I now enter those convictions. Because of your convictions on the two firearms charges, it is necessary for me to give what is called a “three strikes” warning. This is as a result of the fact that you now fall within the legislative regime known as the “three strikes” law.

[4] Given your convictions on the firearms charges, I am now going to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written notice outlining these consequences. This lists serious violence offences that come within the regime. The first consequence is that if you are convicted of any serious violent offence other than murder that is committed after this warning, and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment, then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release. The second consequence is that if you are convicted of murder committed after this warning, then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. That sentence will be served without parole unless the sentencing Judge considers it would be manifestly unjust for that to occur. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

[5] When I gave you a sentence indication, I set out the facts in full. You attended that hearing via AVL link, so you heard what I had to say. For that reason I do not propose to go through the facts relating to your offending again. My sentence indication will be annexed to, and will form part of, my sentencing remarks. Anybody

1      R v Taipeti [2018] NZHC 961.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 198A.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 198.

who wishes to read and understand the factual basis for your offending will therefore need to read the sentence indication.

[6] In the sentence indication, I selected a starting point of six years imprisonment on what I…

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 Taipeti

Details

AGLC: R v Taipeti [2018] NZHC 1482
Case: [2018] NZHC 1482
Decision Date: 21 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Karaneihana Taipeti, pleaded guilty to charges of participating in an organised criminal group, discharging a firearm against a law enforcement officer, and discharging a firearm with intent to injure. The case was heard by the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry. The legal issues before the court involved setting a starting point for the sentence, considering aggravating and mitigating factors, and determining a minimum term of imprisonment.

The court began by setting a starting point of six years imprisonment for the charge of participating in an organised criminal group, which was considered the lead charge. An uplift of one year was added for the two firearms charges, resulting in a total starting point of seven years imprisonment. The court acknowledged the defendant's previous convictions but found no relevant convictions for present purposes. The court applied a 25% discount for the entry of guilty pleas, resulting in an end sentence of five years three months imprisonment. The court also imposed a minimum term of imprisonment of two and a half years.

The court considered mitigating factors presented by the defendant's counsel, including strong family support and a degree of insight into the offending. The court agreed to a reduction of three months to reflect these mitigating factors. The court also reduced the minimum term slightly to reflect the reduced sentence.

The court sentenced the defendant to five years imprisonment for participating in an organised criminal group, with a minimum term of two years five months before being eligible to apply for parole. The defendant was also sentenced to nine months imprisonment for the remaining charges, to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on the lead charge.

Orders