R v Taoho - [2021] NZHC 1552

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2020-063-1032

[2021] NZHC 1552

THE QUEEN

v

BILLIE MAHINGA RANGI TAOHO

Hearing: 25 June 2021

Counsel:

R Jenson for Crown

C Harold for defendant

Judgment:

25 June 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF KATZ J

Solicitors:Pollett Legal Limited, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Tauranga Public Defence Service, Tauranga

R v TAOHO [2021] NZHC 1552 [25 June 2021]

Introduction

[1] Billie Taoho, you have pleaded guilty to one representative charge of perverting the course of justice. You appear today for sentence. The maximum penalty for wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice is seven years’ imprisonment.1

Facts

[2]I will begin by briefly setting out the facts of your offending.

[3] You and your then partner, Mr Te Rupe, spent the day at a memorial service for Mr Te Rupe’s father, who had passed away a year earlier. Mr Te Rupe consumed alcohol and cannabis throughout the day. Once the function had ended, you, Mr Te Rupe, Compton Hiko, and your brother, Chosen Mulder, left together in Mr Te Rupe’s car. Initially, Compton Hiko was driving. Mr Te Rupe, however, complained that Mr Hiko “drove like a slug”, and insisted that he drive instead.

[4] Mr Te Rupe drove dangerously and erratically. He crossed the centre line while turning a corner and crashed into a motorcyclist who was travelling in the opposite direction. Tragically, the motorcyclist was killed instantly.

[5] Mr Te Rupe was charged and remanded in custody. While in prison, he made several phone calls to you in an attempt to influence Mr Hiko’s evidence.

[6] On 12 June 2020, Mr Te Rupe instructed you to tell Mr Hiko to say that “he knows nothing, the bike came out of nowhere, all he has to say is the bike came out of nowhere”. You responded “yeah,” but there is no evidence whether you actually did as Mr Te Rupe had asked.

[7] Subsequently, on 1 July 2020, Mr Te Rupe asked you to contact his brother and ask him to contact Mr Hiko’s captain and tell him to tell Mr Hiko to keep quiet. You did not immediately do as requested. After a follow up phone call from Mr Te Rupe, however, you did. You later reported back to Mr Te Rupe that you had asked “Black” to go and tell Mr Hiko to “shut his mouth”.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 117(e).

[8] Finally, on 9 July 2020, Mr Te Rupe called and told you to “tell Peter to go and see [Mr Hiko], with aggression this time”. You said that you would send Peter a message from Mr Te Rupe’s Facebook account. Mr Te Rupe requested that: “yeah, tell him ASAP, needs to be done, might need a punch in the face, real talk”. The following day Mr Te Rupe called and said to you “did you ask Peter to do it with aggression?” You responded, “oh no, I just asked…

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 Taoho

Details

AGLC: R v Taoho [2021] NZHC 1552
Case: [2021] NZHC 1552
Decision Date: 25 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Taoho, Billie Mahinga Rangi Taoho was sentenced by Katz J at the High Court of New Zealand, Tauranga Registry, for the offence of perverting the course of justice. Taoho had pleaded guilty to one representative charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The maximum penalty for this offence is seven years' imprisonment. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Taoho, considering various mitigating factors and the principles of parity and sentencing guidelines.

The court began by setting a starting point for the sentence, which it determined to be 20 months’ imprisonment. This starting point was chosen considering the principle of parity with the sentence of Taoho's accomplice, Mr. Te Rupe, as well as relevant case law and similar cases. Katz J acknowledged that Taoho's culpability was significantly less than that of Mr. Te Rupe, as she was largely acting as a conduit for his instructions and appeared to be less enthusiastic in participating in his schemes.

In assessing the appropriate sentence, Katz J applied discounts for Taoho's guilty plea and personal mitigating factors. A 25% discount was applied for Taoho’s early guilty plea, and an additional 15% discount was granted to account for her remorse, good character, and relative youth. After applying these discounts, the court reduced the sentence to 12 months’ imprisonment. Katz J then considered whether to commute the sentence to a non-custodial sentence, such as home detention, which would allow Taoho to continue her employment. Given that Taoho had a suitable home detention address and appeared to be a good candidate for home detention, Katz J sentenced her to six months’ home detention with specific conditions, including the requirement to attend any recommended programmes, counselling, or treatment. The remaining charges against Taoho were dismissed as the Crown did not provide evidence.

Orders