Legal Research
Cases
R v Tararo

R v Tararo

Case [2024] NZHC 415 1 March 2024

Guilty Plea

Jurisdiction

Youth and Prospect of Rehabilitation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CRI-2021-085-149

[2024] NZHC 415

THE KING

v

TAIN TARARO

Hearing: 1 March 2024

Counsel:

S C Carter for Crown M Smith for Defendant

Sentence:

1 March 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF ISAC J

Introduction

[1] Tain Tararo, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm.1 The maximum penalty is four years’ imprisonment.

The offending

[2]The facts of the offending are these.

[3] In the early hours of 20 December 2020, Mr Rau Tongia was shot and killed with a firearm. There are five people awaiting trial for his murder.

1 Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b).

R v TARARO [2024] NZHC 415 [1 March 2024]

[4] Later the same day, you received the firearm used in Mr Tongia’s homicide from your girlfriend. You then kept the weapon for up to two weeks. You did so in order to frustrate Police efforts to locate the murder weapon. You also thoroughly cleaned it, no doubt to remove fingerprints and other evidence that might tie the weapon to your partner or her associates. You subsequently returned the firearm to her.

[5] You were originally charged as an accessory after the fact to murder but following an alternative charge—the one for which you are for sentence today—you immediately pleaded guilty.

[6] It’s clear Mr Tongia’s family love him very much. Some are here today and I wish to acknowledge their presence and their grief.

[7] The victim impact statements I have read reveal the impact of Mr Tongia’s loss on his whānau. Mr Tongia is described as cheeky and down to earth. Some family members recall looking forward to seeing him at a family gathering on the day of his murder, but he never showed up. They did not find out why until much later that day.

[8] Mr Tongia’s father says his son’s death has ruined his whole life. Every day he feels Mr Tongia’s loss and it makes him cry. Christmas will never be the same for him again. He cannot look forward to it, even with his mokopuna. Mr Tongia also left behind three sons, and the many members of his family who still grieve for his loss.

Personal Circumstances

[9] You were 19 years old at the time of the offending and had no previous convictions. By your own admission, you were heavily influenced by your partner at the time. You believed the relationship was at risk. You agreed to hide the firearm when she asked you to in an effort to preserve the relationship.

[10] You successfully completed your high school education and achieved level 3 NCEA certification. You are in steady employment. You live with your mother and younger sister and work six days a week as a labourer. Your income is important support for your whole family. Your father died after a long illness in 2018, when you

were 17 years of age. You told the…

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 Tararo

Details

AGLC: R v Tararo [2024] NZHC 415
Case: [2024] NZHC 415
Decision Date: 1 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand at Wellington dealt with the case of the Crown versus Tain Tararo, where the defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm, with the maximum penalty being four years' imprisonment. The defendant received the firearm used in a homicide from his girlfriend, kept it for two weeks to hinder police investigation, and cleaned it to remove evidence. He was charged as an accessory after the fact but pleaded guilty to the alternative charge.

The legal issues involved determining an appropriate starting point for the sentence considering the nature of the firearm, the circumstances of its possession, and the reason for possession. The court also had to weigh personal aggravating and mitigating factors, including the defendant's age, employment status, and the influence of his partner.

The court considered the firearm to be an unloaded shotgun, which was less serious compared to other types of firearms. The significant aggravating factor was the defendant's knowledge that the weapon was used in a homicide and his deliberate actions to assist those involved in evading arrest. After evaluating mitigating factors such as the defendant's guilty plea, youth, and prospects of rehabilitation, the court determined a starting point of 18 months imprisonment, reduced by 50% to nine months. However, given the end sentence was less than two years, the court considered a non-custodial sentence and sentenced the defendant to four and a half months of community detention and 12 months of intensive supervision.

The final orders included a sentence of four and a half months' community detention to be served at a specified address, with a curfew from 8pm to 5.30am, seven days a week, and 12 months of intensive supervision on special conditions.

Orders