R v Tarau - [2018] NZHC 2595

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2017-087-131 [2018] NZHC 2595

THE QUEEN

v

TE RENETI BROOK TARAU

Hearing: 4 October 2018

Appearances:

O M Salt for Crown
T Braithwaite (on behalf of R Mansfield) for Defendant

Judgment:

4 October 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v TARAU [2018] NZHC 2595 [4 October 2018]

[1] Mr Tarau, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty on charges of participating in an organised criminal group1 and rioting.2 The maximum penalty for the first of those charges is ten years imprisonment, whilst the maximum penalty for the other is two years imprisonment.

The facts

[2] I presided over your trial and therefore have a good grasp of the facts. The offending occurred in the context of long-standing rivalry and enmity between the Black Power gang and the Mongrel Mob gang. You are not a member of either gang, but you have associates, and I believe family members, in Black Power and are more closely associated with that gang for that reason than with the Mongrel Mob gang.

[3] On 17 January 2017, the Black Power became aware that a funeral procession comprising a large number of Mongrel Mob members and associates was to travel through the Whakatane township on the way to a crematorium just outside town. This produced a good deal of angst on the part of the Black Power because they saw this as a form of insult given events that had recently occurred between the two gangs. For that reason you and other members of the Black Power gang stationed yourselves at points in and around Whakatane township where you believed the funeral procession might enter the town.

[4] The procession ultimately entered through a back route along Valley Road. When members of the Black Power learned this was occurring, they sent a group of members and associates to a service lane running parallel to Valley Road. From the cover of bushes on the service lane these persons threw rocks, sticks and bottles at cars in the funeral procession. Not surprisingly, this evoked an immediate response from the Mongrel Mob. They responded by firing two shots in the direction of the persons who had been throwing missiles at them. A car containing members of the Mongrel Mob also tried to run down Black Power members and associates as they fled from the service lane.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.
2 Crimes Act, s 87.

[5] At the time this occurred you were with Black Power members and associates who had gathered near the intersection of Valley and Gorge Roads. I have no doubt that word of the shooting quickly spread to members of this group. Several vehicles
then travelled to Arawa Road, which intersects with Valley Road. You were seen arriving at the scene. A silver Mitsubishi Galant motor vehicle stopped near the intersection of Valley Road and Tahi Street. The boot of the vehicle…

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 [2018] NZHC 2595
Case: [2018] NZHC 2595
Decision Date: 4 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Tarau, the defendant, Te Reneti Brook Tarau, appeared before the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, for sentencing following his conviction on charges of participating in an organised criminal group and rioting. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for Tarau, taking into account the legal issues surrounding his culpability and the mitigating factors presented in his favour.

The legal issues primarily revolved around determining the appropriate starting point for Tarau’s sentence, considering his level of participation in the offending and the mitigating factors that could potentially reduce his sentence. The court had to balance Tarau’s involvement in the incident with his expressed remorse and the fact that he had no previous association with the Black Power gang. The court also had to consider the time Tarau had already spent in custody and whether this should be deducted from his overall sentence.

The court reasoned that while Tarau was not a formal member of the Black Power gang, he was closely associated with it and had participated in the events of 17 January 2017. The court selected a starting point of three years imprisonment, acknowledging that Tarau was under significant peer pressure but still chose to participate. The court further reduced the sentence by seven months to account for the 15 months Tarau had already spent on bail conditions and by an additional five months to reflect his genuine remorse and determination to avoid gang-related activities in the future. Consequently, the court decided on a sentence of two years imprisonment, reduced to six months home detention, taking into account the time Tarau had already spent in custody.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of six months home detention with specific conditions, such as residing at a nominated address, abstaining from alcohol and drugs, attending a psychological assessment, and avoiding communication or association with members of the Black Power gang without approval from a probation officer.

Orders