R v Tamati - [2012] NZHC 221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2010-082-518 [2012] NZHC 221

THE QUEEN

v

RANGI WAINOHU TAMATI ALEXANDER TAMATI SOVITE TIMOTHY SUA RONALD RANGI RIGBY
HARRY SANTANA MINHINNICK CLAUDE HAMILTON EDWARDS

Counsel: R J Collins and J E Rielly for Crown
C J Tennet for Rangi Tamati
B Crowley (for R Fairbrother) for Alexander Tamati
G M Fairbrother for Sua
J S Jefferson (for C B Wilkinson-Smith) for Rigby
J S Jefferson for Minhinnick
J S Jefferson (for N H Wright) for Edwards

Judgment: 15 February 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF MACKENZIE J

[1] All of you appear for sentence on one count of participation in an organised criminal group under s 98A of the Crimes Act 1961. You Rangi Tamati also appear for sentence on one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The charges arise out of a gunfight which took place at the Mongrel Mob pad in Wairoa on
10 August 2010.

[2] The events of the morning of 10 August 2010 had their origins in a long standing leadership dispute within the Mongrel Mob Wairoa. The immediate catalyst

R V R TAMATI HC WN CRI-2010-082-518 [15 February 2012]

was a fracas which developed at the pad on the afternoon of 9 August. There was a confrontation between Rangi Tamati and Claude Edwards on one side, and Kelly Gemmell, Saul Waihape and Vincent Monika on the other. A fight developed. Rangi Tamati’s patch was removed. He left, making clear his intention to return.

[3] Gemmell, Waihape and Monika anticipated a retaliation and made preparations to meet it. They obtained arms and ammunitions and returned to the pad. The three of them, with others, spent the night at the pad. Early the following morning, they were joined by others, and there were then seven people inside the pad: Gemmell, Waihape and Monika and four others. They were armed with a
.22 calibre pistol, a 20 gauge pump action shotgun and a 12 gauge double barrel sawn-off shotgun.

[4] Rangi Tamati made preparations for a retaliation. Early on the following morning, Tuesday, 10 August, a group of at least 17 Mongrel Mob members or supporters from Wairoa and Napier arrived in the yard of the Mongrel Mob pad. They were armed with at least five weapons: a 7.65mm semi automatic pistol; two semi automatic .22 rifles; one bolt action .22 rifle; and a cut down pump action
12 gauge shotgun.

[5] A gunfight ensued. At least 25 shots were fired. The ESR firearms expert was able to identify trajectories of 21 shots fired from outside to the pad, and four shots from inside the pad. Those inside fired the first shots. One of those was a shot from a .22 pistol fired by Mr Gemmell into Mr Edwards’ leg. Fire was returned from outside. In the course of the exchange of fire, Mr Gemmell was hit in the face by a shotgun shot. He was seriously wounded. Mr Edwards was hit again by some shotgun pellets.…

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 Tamati

Details

AGLC: R v Tamati [2012] NZHC 221
Case: [2012] NZHC 221
Decision Date: 15 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tamati involved multiple defendants charged with participation in an organised criminal group under the Crimes Act 1961, with one defendant also charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. The charges arose from a gunfight at the Mongrel Mob pad in Wairoa on 10 August 2010, following a leadership dispute within the gang. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for each defendant, considering the nature and extent of their involvement in the criminal activities.

The legal issues centred on the principles of denunciation and deterrence in sentencing, and the individual culpability of each defendant in the context of the organised criminal group. The court had to balance these considerations with the need to impose penalties that reflected the seriousness of the offending while also taking into account the personal circumstances of each defendant. The court examined the roles of the defendants in the planning and execution of the armed confrontation and the extent to which each defendant was aware of, or recklessly indifferent to, the presence and likely use of firearms.

The court concluded that the defendants' participation in the gunfight was a serious criminal offence deserving of strong denunciation and a significant deterrent effect. The court considered that the starting point for sentencing should reflect the high level of culpability and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court noted that the defendants' involvement in an organised criminal group, coupled with the use of firearms, placed their offending towards the more serious end of the spectrum for such crimes. The court also rejected the argument that the defendants' participation was a minor incident, emphasising that the use of firearms to settle disputes was unacceptable in a civilised society.

After assessing the individual culpability of each defendant, the court imposed sentences that ranged from three to six and a half years imprisonment, with some defendants receiving cumulative sentences for multiple charges. The court took into account the defendants' personal circumstances, including their criminal history and efforts to reform, but found that these factors did not warrant significant adjustments to the starting points determined. The court emphasised the importance of sending a strong message about the consequences of participating in organised criminal activities and the use of violence to resolve disputes.

Orders