R v Takamore - [2019] NZHC 2315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CRI-2018-035-1361

[2019] NZHC 2315

THE QUEEN

v

AARON TAKAMORE

Hearing: 13 September 2019

Counsel:

M Shaw for Crown

H F Croft for Defendant

Sentencing:

13 September 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF THOMAS J

[1] Mr Takamore, you pleaded guilty, following a sentence indication, to one charge of aggravated burglary.1

[2] I indicated an end sentence of three years’ imprisonment, with consideration yet to be given to a number of matters including victim impact statements, a cultural report,2 a pre-sentence report and remorse. You pleaded guilty on 21 March 2019 to this indication and were given your second strike warning.3 This means you will serve any sentence of imprisonment without parole.4

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 232(1)(a) and s 66(1), maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 27.
3      Sections 86A(36) and 86C.
4      Section 86C(4).

R v TAKAMORE [2019] NZHC 2315 [13 September 2019]

[3] Your lawyer, Ms Croft, has obtained a cultural report from Mr Harry Walker, two letters of support for you and a letter from you outlining your own history in your own words. These matters will be of great help to me in sentencing you today.

[4] Although an indication has already been given, I need to repeat many of the comments I made to explain the sentence I am going to impose.

Offending

[5] The other defendants involved in this matter were known to you. Ms Walker-Dahlberg is your cousin and Mr Daley is her partner. At the time, you all lived together in Masterton.

[6] You also knew the two victims in this matter. One of the victims (the first victim) was related to the former partner of Ms Walker-Dahlberg with whom she shared a child. The other victim (the second victim) was the first victim’s partner. In the weeks leading up to the events, hostilities related to a child custody dispute between Ms Walker-Dahlberg and her former partner were intensifying. You knew about these issues and told the pre-sentence report writer you were not surprised it was reaching boiling point.

[7] At around 9.00 pm on 2 December 2018, you, Ms Walker-Dahlberg and Mr Daley travelled to the first victim’s mother’s address. You were driving. All three of you had covered your faces with bandanas. You and Mr Daley were both wearing your respective gang patches. You parked some distance from the address and turned off the lights.

[8] Mr Daley got out of the car carrying a loaded shotgun and walked toward the victims and their family. The first victim, assuming Mr Daley was carrying a bat, walked onto the road to challenge Mr Daley to a fight. Once Mr Daley was within a few metres of the first victim, he raised his shotgun and loaded it into an active state. The first victim ran into his mother’s yard and tried to hide behind the cars parked in the driveway.

[9]…

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 [2019] NZHC 2315
Case: [2019] NZHC 2315
Decision Date: 13 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Aaron Takamore faced sentencing for aggravated burglary, having pleaded guilty to the charge following a sentence indication. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account various factors, including the seriousness of the offending, the offender's culpability, personal and cultural circumstances, remorse, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court assessed the gravity of the offence, noting the presence of a loaded shotgun, threats of violence, and the significant harm caused to the victim. The court acknowledged Takamore's lesser role in the crime, as he remained in the car while his co-defendants engaged in the confrontation and threats. The court also considered the offender's background, marked by hardship, trauma, and involvement in gang culture, which contributed to his criminal behaviour. The court recognised Takamore's genuine remorse, expressed through letters and a willingness to participate in restorative justice and rehabilitation programmes.

The court ultimately sentenced Takamore to 12 months of home detention, accompanied by special conditions aimed at promoting his rehabilitation and reintegration into society. These conditions included attending a psychological assessment, participating in recommended treatment, and refraining from contact with the victim without permission. The decision reflects the court's emphasis on the importance of providing offenders with opportunities for change and reducing the risk of reoffending, while also ensuring public safety and offering victims appropriate recognition and redress.

Orders