R v Takamore - [2020] NZHC 574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2018-035-1361

[2020] NZHC 574

THE QUEEN

v

AARON TAKAMORE

Hearing: 19 March 2020

Counsel:

G J Burston for Crown

J C Hannam for Defendant (via AVL)
S Nicholls for Community Corrections (via AVL)

Judgment:

19 March 2020

ORAL JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

(APPLICATION TO CANCEL SENTENCE OF HOME DETENTION AND RE-SENTENCE)

[1] Mr Takamore appeared for sentence on 13 September 2019. Even at that time there had been a great deal of thought put into sentencing options for him.

[2] The Crown supported a sentence in the community, if suitable arrangements could be made, and it took some time for those suitable arrangements to be put in place.

[3] Mr Takamore was sentenced to 12 months’ home detention with special conditions. The home detention address became unsuitable and a change of address to his mother’s address was approved without the matter being referred back to me. I mean no disrespect to Mr Takamore’s mother, but it is perhaps unsurprising that that

R v TAKAMORE [2020] NZHC 574 [19 March 2020]

arrangement was not successful. Mr Takamore left the address without Corrections’ consent.

[4] Mr Takamore has now been in custody since 19 January for having left the address without consent. Corrections has laid an application to cancel the sentence and resentence him to imprisonment. We have had a number of calls of this matter since the date of that application. The reason for that is because Mr Hannam as counsel, Mr Burston for the Crown, and indeed I remain of the review that, if possible, it is in not only Mr Takamore’s interest, but in the wider interests of society that he be sentenced to a community-based sentence.

[5] It has taken some time to get to the position today where I can make a final decision. I want to express my gratitude to Ms X for appearing in Court today and talking to me candidly about her situation. It was with Ms X that Mr Takamore originally lived on home detention. She provided me a little bit more background as to why that came to an end. In short, it involved not only difficulties she was having at that time with her then partner, but also issues concerning her children coming to the address. Ms X’s children are currently in the care of her mother but they do visit her address.

[6] Ms X has assured me that her mother is supportive of Mr Takamore being at the address. He will have his own bedroom and she, Ms X, is supportive of him. She emphasises they have a good relationship. They are supportive of one another. She has her own challenges to deal with and she spoke candidly about those.

[7] There have been other addresses considered, for example, a Bay of Plenty address. Mr Takamore did not want those inquiries pursued because he was of the view that living 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 Takamore

Details

AGLC: R v Takamore [2020] NZHC 574
Case: [2020] NZHC 574
Decision Date: 19 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Takamore, the defendant, Aaron Takamore, appeared before the High Court of New Zealand Wellington Registry for sentencing on 13 September 2019. The Crown had initially supported a community-based sentence, provided that suitable arrangements could be made. Takamore was sentenced to 12 months of home detention with special conditions. However, the home detention address became unsuitable, leading to an approved change to his mother's address, which also proved unsuccessful when Takamore left without Corrections' consent. Consequently, Corrections laid an application to cancel the sentence and resentence Takamore to imprisonment. The court was required to decide whether to cancel the home detention sentence and resentence Takamore to imprisonment or to explore other community-based sentencing options.

The court considered various factors in deciding whether to cancel the home detention sentence. It took into account the defendant's previous living arrangements, the support of his former partner, Ms X, and the concerns about the children visiting the address. The court also explored other potential addresses for Takamore to reside under home detention. Ultimately, the court was satisfied that it was appropriate for Takamore to return to Ms X's address, with appropriate measures in place to address any concerns regarding the children. Additionally, the court acknowledged the breach of community work by Takamore and expressed hope that a conviction and discharge would be the appropriate result in the District Court, allowing Takamore to focus on his rehabilitation journey.

The court dismissed the application to cancel and re-sentence Takamore. The sentence of home detention imposed on 13 September 2019 continued to run, with the address changed back to the original address. Takamore was required to attend an assessment for a medium intensity rehabilitation programme and complete an appropriate programme as recommended by the assessor. The court also hoped that Takamore could re-engage with Tui Ora for a daytime programme of activities. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that Takamore attended rehabilitation and completed his community work, with the best support provided to him. Judicial monitoring was ordered, with a report on Takamore's progress to be submitted in three months. The court's decision aimed to balance the interests of Takamore, the community, and the need for effective rehabilitation.

Orders