R v Taitapanui - [2018] NZHC 2592

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2017-087-131

[2018] NZHC 2592

THE QUEEN

v

RONALD FISHER TAITAPANUI

Hearing:
4 October 2018

(Heard at TAURANGA)

Appearances:

O M Salt for Crown

L Smith for Defendant

Judgment:

4 October 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v TAITAPANUI [2018] NZHC 2592 [4 October 2018]

[1] Mr Taitapanui, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury on charges of participating in an organised criminal group1 and rioting.2 The maximum penalty for the charge of participating in an organised criminal group is ten years imprisonment, whilst the maximum penalty for the other charge is two years imprisonment.

Background

[2] The charges were laid as a result of your participation in a series of incidents that occurred in and around Whakatane on the afternoon of 17 January 2017. On that date members of the Black Power gang, with whom you had been closely affiliated for many years, became aware that a funeral procession comprising members and associates of the rival Mongrel Mob gang was to pass through the Whakatane township on its way to a crematorium just outside the town. You and others then went to various locations where you thought the funeral procession might enter the town. You were seen present at the various gatherings as members of your gang awaited the arrival of the funeral procession.

[3] The incident that gives rise to the charges was sparked by another incident that occurred a short time earlier in a service lane near Valley Road. As the funeral procession was entering the township, members and associates of your gang threw missiles at the cars in the funeral procession from the cover of a service lane. You were not involved in that incident, but I am sure that you quickly learned what happened as a result of it.

[4] The Mongrel Mob responded to the attack on the procession by discharging several shots in the direction of the Black Power group who had been throwing missiles at them. A vehicle driven by members of the Mongrel Mob also endeavoured to run down members of the Black Power group as they fled from the service lane. At this stage you were with other members of the gang in the vicinity of Rex Morpeth Park. I have no doubt that word quickly spread of the fact that shots had been fired by the Mongrel Mob. You then went in a car driven by Mr Biddle to Arawa Road. I have

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.
2 Crimes Act, s 87.

no doubt that you went there with others as part of a plan to provide a “show of force” to the Mongrel Mob in response to the fact that they had discharged shots at associates of your group.

[5] Your vehicle travelled down Arawa Road towards the intersection with Valley Road. At the intersection of Valley Road and Arawa Road, there was…

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 Taitapanui

Details

AGLC: R v Taitapanui [2018] NZHC 2592
Case: [2018] NZHC 2592
Decision Date: 4 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Taitapanui, Ronald Fisher Taitapanui was found guilty by a jury of participating in an organised criminal group and rioting, following a series of incidents in Whakatane on 17 January 2017. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Taitapanui, taking into account the seriousness of the charges, his culpability, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. The legal issues included the starting point for the sentence, any uplifts for aggravating factors, and any discounts for mitigating factors.

The court began by selecting a starting point of three years and three months imprisonment, considering Taitapanui's culpability to be the same as his co-defendants in similar cases. The court then considered whether to apply an uplift for aggravating factors, such as Taitapanui's previous convictions for disorderly behaviour and unlawful assembly. However, the court declined to apply an uplift, as the previous convictions occurred around ten years prior to the current offending and any uplift would be offset by any credit for mitigating factors.

The court then considered several mitigating factors presented by Taitapanui's counsel, such as his limited expression of remorse and difficulties he had experienced due to past injuries. However, the court declined to apply discounts for these factors, as they were either offset by the decision not to apply an uplift for aggravating factors or did not warrant a discount. Consequently, the court did not reduce the sentence from the initial starting point of three years and three months imprisonment.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Taitapanui to three years and three months imprisonment for participating in an organised criminal group and nine months imprisonment for rioting, to be served concurrently. This resulted in an effective sentence of three years and three months imprisonment. The court's decision was based on the seriousness of the charges, Taitapanui's culpability, and the absence of significant mitigating factors.

Orders