Legal Research
Cases
R v Tarau

R v Tarau

Case [2023] NZHC 2564 14 September 2023

Criminal Liability

Arson

Riotous Damage

Assault with a Weapon

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2023-419-000026

[2023] NZHC 2564

THE KING

v

TE RENETI TARAU

Hearing: 14 September 2023

Appearances:

R Mann for the Crown S Mills for Mr Tarau

Sentencing:

14 September 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Hamilton Legal, Hamilton Counsel: S Mills, Barrister, Rotorua

R v TARAU [2023] NZHC 2564 [14 September 2023]

[1] Mr Tarau, you were one of 11 defendants who went to trial on charges arising out of rioting at Waikeria Prison over the New Year 2020/2021 period. Six of your co- defendants pleaded guilty to amalgamated charges prior to trial.

[2] Four weeks into the trial you and six other defendants pleaded guilty to three representative charges: arson (with a danger to life),1 riotous damage,2 and assault with a weapon.3 The three charges are an amalgamation of charges in the Crown Charge Notice dated 28 June 2022.

Factual background

[3] At the time you pleaded guilty you accepted the contents of a Summary of Facts dated 13 March 2023. Although you are familiar with the facts it is necessary for me to summarise them in my decision. I repeat the summary from my sentencing decision of Leon Huritu,4 one of your co-offenders.

[4] You were in custody in the High Security Facility at Waikeria Prison at the time of the riot.

[5] On the morning of 29 December 2020 an incident occurred in one of the exercise yards, yard 116, when a prisoner refused to return a disposable razor (or razors) to a Corrections officer. Several other prisoners offered that prisoner their support. You were not one of those prisoners. You were not, in fact, in yard 116 at the time. When a Corrections officer told those in the yard they would all be returned to their cells early if the razors were not surrendered, a number of prisoners in the yard told the Corrections officer they were not going anywhere and were ready for a fight. Eventually one razor was handed in, the situation was defused and tensions eased. The prisoners in yard 116 were then permitted to remain in the yard for the usual period.

[6] By around 1.00 pm a significantly more hostile atmosphere had developed in yard 116. Nine of the prisoners (the group) set in train the events that led to the riot.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 267(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 90. Maximum penalty: 7 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 202C(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 5 years’ imprisonment.
4      R v Huritu [2023] NZHC 1960.

They damaged property in the yard. They lit fires on top of the wooden seats and structures inside the yard. Efforts made by Corrections officers and firefighters to extinguish the fires were thwarted by members of the group of nine shielding the fires with their bodies and various items. They also covered security cameras with wet toilet paper and threatened Corrections officers with…

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 Tarau

Details

AGLC: R v Tarau [2023] NZHC 2564
Case: [2023] NZHC 2564
Decision Date: 14 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tarau concerns sentencing for Te Reneti Tarau, who was involved in a riot at Waikeria Prison in New Zealand over the New Year 2020/2021. Tarau pleaded guilty to charges of arson with a danger to life, riotous damage, and assault with a weapon. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence considering the severity of the offenses, the harm caused, and mitigating factors presented by the defense.

The legal issues the court had to address included determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, and ensuring parity with co-defendants who had already been sentenced. Aggravating factors included the scale of the riot, the threat to life, and the significant damage caused. Mitigating factors involved Tarau's background, his remorse, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court had to balance these factors in accordance with the purposes of sentencing, primarily accountability, denunciation, deterrence, protection of the community, and rehabilitation.

The court adopted a starting point of nine years and six months for the most serious charge of arson, consistent with sentences given to co-defendants. It applied uplifts for the other charges, totaling a starting point of nine years and six months. The court then considered mitigating factors, granting discounts for Tarau's guilty plea (5%), his personal background (15%), his remorse (5%), and his rehabilitation prospects (5%), resulting in a total discount of 30%. The final sentence was six years and seven months' imprisonment, with all sentences to be served concurrently.

The court ordered Tarau to serve six years and seven months for the arson charge and five years for each of the other charges, all to run concurrently. Tarau was also discharged on the remaining charges related to the riot.

Orders