R v Te Moana

[2018] NZHC 1480

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2017-016-001092

[2018] NZHC 1480

THE QUEEN

v

JARED RENATA TE MOANA

Hearing:

21 June 2018

Counsel:

SJP Davison for Crown

MA Simpkins for Defendant

Judgment:

21 June 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:

Crown Solicitor, Tauranga. MA Simpkins, Rotorua.

R v TE MOANA [2018] NZHC 1480 [21 June 2018]

Introduction

[1]    Mr Te Moana, you are for sentence on a charge of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter. You sought a sentence indication. You were given one by another Judge, Toogood J. He told you if you pleaded guilty, the likely sentence was 15 months’ imprisonment. You later pleaded guilty, albeit after the Judge’s indication had expired.

[2]    I am going to sentence you consistently with that indication. Consequently, my remarks will be brief.

Facts

[3]    On 26 November 2016, Mr Don Turei (junior) was killed by Mr Andre Taiapa. Mr Turei was driving a motorcycle; Mr Taiapa a van. Mr Taiapa ran Mr Turei down. Further detail is unnecessary, save the offending was gang-related. Mr Taiapa has pleaded guilty to manslaughter and is to be sentenced later this year.

[4]    You learnt what had happened. You and Mr Taiapa took the van elsewhere. You played a  role  in  stripping  it  of  its  identifying  features.  At  approximately 10 o’clock the same night, you and another drove the van to an isolated place on the banks of the Raukokore river. You and others set the van on fire to conceal any evidence or linkage to Mr Turei’s death.

[5]Hence your offence of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter.

Starting point

[6]    The offence you committed is punishable by a maximum term of seven years’ imprisonment. However, the “starting point” for your sentence is determined largely by reference to similar cases. Toogood J foreshadowed a starting point of 21 months’ imprisonment. I adopt that for three reasons.

[7]    First, your offending can be contrasted with a less serious case in which a defendant concealed evidence later found by the Police.1 You were actively involved in the destruction of evidence.2 You knew the van would be of interest to the Police. Your actions, along with those of others, made a complete investigation impossible. Second, an element of planning accompanied your offending. Third, your offending was gang-related.3 You and others acted in concert. You are a member of the  Mongrel Mob; so too Mr Taiapa. The victim, Mr Turei, was a member of an opposing group.

Personal factors

[8]    You are 34 years old. You have a long criminal record, especially for someone of your age. However, like Toogood J, I consider your record does not obviously aggravate this offending. However, you are not a first offender and cannot claim the benefit of prior good character.

[9]    Toogood J said he would discount the sentence by 25 percent for your guilty plea. I do the same.

[10]   There are no other mitigating features. You told the writer of the pre-sentence report you were not involved in disposing of the van. You have since accepted you were. Your prevarication in relation to the facts underscores the absence of any demonstrable remorse.

[11]This brings the sentence to 15 months’ imprisonment.

Home detention

[12]   Toogood J left open the prospect of home detention—but no address is available. In any event, you do not pursue home detention.

1      R v Granich [2013] NZHC 2657.

2      Compare R v Haufano [2014] NZHC 1201.

3      R v Kahotea HC Wanganui CRI-2008-083-703, 28 April 2008.

[13]   I would not have imposed that sentence anyway. Destroying evidence after someone’s life has been criminally taken is itself a serious offence. It requires denunciation and deterrence, particularly when the offending is gang-related.

Sentence

[14]   Mr Te Moana, please stand. I sentence you to a term of 15 months’ imprisonment. You may stand down.

……………………………..

Downs J