R v Taniora - [2016] NZHC 610

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-063-003363 [2016] NZHC 610

THE QUEEN

v

JOSHUAH TANIORA

Hearing: 8 April 2016

Appearances:

Henry Steele for the Crown
Annabel Ives for the Defendant

Judgment:

8 April 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v TANIORA [2016] NZHC 610 [8 April 2016]

Introduction

[1] Joshuah Taniora, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. The maximum penalty for this offence is seven years’ imprisonment.1 I note that you have been remanded in custody since 8 September 2015, or roughly seven months.

[2] On 15 March 2016, I gave you a sentence indication. I indicated to you that if you were to plead guilty to this charge, I would sentence you to a term of 15 months’ imprisonment. You accepted that indication. Even though I provided my reasons for reaching such a sentence when I gave you the indication, I am now required to once again record those reasons as part of this formal sentencing process.

Facts

[3] On 20 November 2015 I delivered my judgment on your application for a discharge under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. I dismissed the application because I was satisfied there was sufficient admissible evidence for a jury to convict. In coming to that decision I reviewed over a dozen intercepted telephone communications between the various parties, yourself included. These conversations took place over a 12 hour interval between 11:00 am and 11:00 pm on Monday, 4 November 2014. I determined that the elements of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery had been made out to the point I was satisfied there was sufficient evidence to require you to face trial.

[4] The background to these events is that in 2014 the Police began an investigation into the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine in Auckland. The operation was code-named “Goa”. It focused on the activities on one George Gaitau and a number of his associates. It is not part of the Crown’s case that you were involved in the activities which brought Mr Gaitau and others to the attention of the Police.

[5] Between 20 July 2014 and 30 October 2014 this Court issued a number of surveillance device warrants. These warrants lead to cellphone communications between Mr Gaitau and others, including you, being intercepted.

[6] The first call of relevance took place at 10:49 am on 4 October 2014 when Mr Gaitau and Mr Doherty discussed the need to obtain funds. Mr Gaitau spoke about needing to sit down with others to try to get some money.

[7] Following this call, Mr Gaitau called you and asked if you wanted to “do a mission”. He told you that the two of you could get $7,000 to split. You asked who you were going to rob and Mr Gaitau replied it would be the female partner of an Asian man he knew. You told him to set it up.

[8] At 12:39 pm Mr Gaitau…

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 Taniora

Details

AGLC: R v Taniora [2016] NZHC 610
Case: [2016] NZHC 610
Decision Date: 8 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joshuah Taniora appeared before the Auckland Registry of the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing following a guilty plea to conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the nature of the offence, the level of premeditation, the number of participants, the threats of violence, and the defendant's personal circumstances and criminal history.

The court determined that the appropriate starting point for the defendant's offending was 16 months' imprisonment, considering the conspiracy was formed over a 12-hour period, with participants selected and a potential victim identified. The defendant had volunteered and even encouraged the use of violence during the commission of the offence. The Crown sought an uplift of two months' imprisonment to reflect the defendant's previous history of violence and property-related offending, which the court accepted. The court also assessed a 15% discount for the defendant's guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of 15 months' imprisonment.

The court ruled that a sentence of home detention was not appropriate in this case due to the defendant's history of breaching court orders and the seriousness of the offence. The defendant had already spent approximately seven months in custody, bringing him close to being eligible for release in relation to this charge.

In conclusion, Joshuah Taniora was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment for conspiring to commit aggravated robbery. The sentencing judge expressed hope that the defendant's time in custody would lead to reflection and change, especially considering the imminent arrival of his child.

Orders