R v Tangiora - [2015] NZHC 1223

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-019-003858 [2015] NZHC 1223

THE QUEEN

v

TE AIHURANGI EDWARDS TANGIORA

Hearing: 4 June 2015

Appearances:

M Robb for Crown
R Weir for Prisoner

Judgment:

4 June 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREWS J

R v TANGIORA [2015] NZHC 1223 [4 June 2015]

Charges

[1] Mr Tangiora, you appear for sentence today having entered pleas to four charges: one of burglary, two of dishonestly using a document, and one of participating in an organised criminal group. Those guilty pleas were entered following a sentence indication which I gave on 6 May 2015, one week before you were to stand trial on those and other charges.

[2] The maximum available penalty on the charge of burglary and participation in an organised criminal group is ten years’ imprisonment. On the charges of dishonestly using a document, the maximum available penalty is imprisonment for seven years.

Relevant facts

[3] For completeness, I will repeat my outline of the facts of your offending from the sentence indication. You are, or were at that time, a member of a local Hamilton street gang known as the Westside Outlaws. The Police summary of facts recorded that text data from cellphones used by you and your co-offenders demonstrated your willingness to be involved in offending such as theft, burglary, aggravated robbery and other dishonesty offending, with the aim of acquiring income and assets.

[4] The summary of facts recorded that on 12 April 2014, there was an aggravated robbery of the Frankton TAB. On the day of that robbery, there was a meeting of the Westside Outlaws at your address, involving you and three co- offenders. Text messages during that afternoon referred to communications about picking up “a firearm”. The summary of facts further noted that later that night you and a co-offender went to an address where the co-offender asked the occupant to hold a sum of money, indicating that the money came from a robbery.

[5] Text communications after then indicated you asking an unknown person to hold (in the words of a text) “loot” that was hidden. There was further ongoing contact between you and your co-offenders referring, among other things, to obtaining firearms and being short of money. There was also discussion about future

offending. The text messages indicated your involvement with arrangements relating to the robbery of a bar on 18 May 2014.

[6] The charge of burglary against you relates to the burglary of the Te Runanga Kirikiriora Adult Learning Centre in Frankton on 23 May 2014, at 2.14 am. A safe containing cash, cheque books, bank cards, keys, trade cards, vouchers and other items to a total value of about $5,000 was taken. A few hours later one of the bank cards was used by you and a co-offender to withdraw $800 in cash. Later the same day, a cheque for $3,000 was presented in order to obtain cash.

Pre-sentence report

[7] You are 26, and of Ngati Porou descent. It is…

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 Tangiora

Details

AGLC: R v Tangiora [2015] NZHC 1223
Case: [2015] NZHC 1223
Decision Date: 4 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tangiora involved Te Aihurangi Edwards Tangiora, who was sentenced for his involvement in various criminal activities, including burglary, dishonest use of a document, and participation in an organised criminal group. The court heard the case on 4 June 2015, with appearances from M Robb for the Crown and R Weir for the prisoner. The sentencing notes detail the background of Tangiora’s offending, which involved significant involvement in a local Hamilton street gang, the Westside Outlaws, engaging in activities such as theft, burglary, and aggravated robbery. The primary charge was burglary of the Te Runanga Kirikiriroa Adult Learning Centre, with additional charges related to dishonest use of a document and organised criminal group participation.

The legal issues before the court included determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing, adjusting this starting point to account for the totality of Tangiora’s offending, and applying discounts for factors such as his guilty plea and attempts at rehabilitation. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, Tangiora’s role in the gang, and his expressed remorse and efforts towards rehabilitation, including employment secured post-sentence and participation in a restorative justice process.

After thorough deliberation, the court established a starting point of 21 months for the burglary charge, adjusted upwards by eight months to reflect the additional charges and Tangiora’s role in the criminal group, and further increased by three months for his history of dishonesty offences. A discount of 15 percent was applied for his guilty plea and steps towards rehabilitation. The final sentence imposed was 23 months imprisonment for the burglary charge, with concurrent two-month sentences for each of the dishonest use of a document charges, and a six-month sentence for participating in a criminal group, effectively resulting in a 23-month term. The court also imposed standard conditions under the Parole Act 2002 following Tangiora’s release.

In conclusion, Tangiora was sentenced to 23 months imprisonment, with concurrent sentences for the additional charges, and subject to standard parole conditions. Charges 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were dismissed due to lack of evidence.

Orders