R v Te Poono - [2017] NZHC 566

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-054-2886 [2017] NZHC 566

THE QUEEN

v

HEMI TE POONO

Hearing: 27 March 2017

Counsel:

D Davies and J Mildenhall for Crown
I M Antunovic for Defendant

Sentence:

27 March 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF COLLINS J

[1] Mr Te Poono, this morning I am sentencing you in relation to 10 charges.

[2] Four of the charges stemmed from offending committed in Palmerston North on 27 August 2015. You pleaded guilty to those charges on 26 October 2016, namely:

(1) attempted burglary of the Manawatu Standard building;1

(2) attempted burglary of the FMG building;2

(3) unlawful possession of a firearm;3 and

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a) and s 311. Maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 231(1)(a) and s 311.
3      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1). maximum penalty is four years’ imprisonment or a $5,000 fine.

R v TE POONO [2017] NZHC 566 [27 March 2017]

[3] Four charges arose from offending committed in September in the Manawatu prison. You pleaded guilty on 1 November 2016 to those charges, namely:

(1) assault with a weapon on 25 September;5 and

(2) three charges of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm on

28 September.6

[4] The two remaining charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm7 arose from offending that occurred in the Rimutaka Prison on
19 October 2015 and 12 November 2015. You pleaded guilty to those charges on

18 October 2016.

[5] You were acquitted on a charge of murder by a jury in a trial that occurred between 7 November and 24 November 2016 in the Wellington High Court.

[6] I have carefully considered whether preventive detention is appropriate in your circumstances but I have decided to impose a finite period of imprisonment. In sentencing I shall:

(1) first explain your offending;

(2) then review your personal circumstances; (3) I’ll explain your previous offending;
(4) then I’ll outline the pre-sentence reports that are before me;

(5)then I’ll explain why I am not imposing a sentence of preventive detention;

4      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 29(1)(b). Maximum penalty is three months’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act 1961, s 202C. Maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(1). Maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
7      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1). Maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.

(7) then I’ll examine adjustments to the starting point; and

(8) then explain the totality adjustment and your final sentence.

Your offending

Palmerston North offending

27 August 2015 – two charges of burglary and possession of a firearm

[7] At about 4.40 am on the 27th of August you entered Jersey Lane, an alley in central Palmerston North. You were armed with a sawn-off shotgun. You were also in possession of shotgun ammunition and a night vision device.

[8] You climbed up the fire escape at the rear of the Manawatu Standard building. The staircase was enclosed by secure steel gates between floors, steel barriers, barbed wire and…

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 Te Poono

Details

AGLC: R v Te Poono [2017] NZHC 566
Case: [2017] NZHC 566
Decision Date: 27 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Te Poono, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, involves Hemi Te Poono, who stands convicted on multiple charges stemming from incidents in Palmerston North, Manawatu Prison, and Rimutaka Prison. Te Poono pleaded guilty to charges including attempted burglary, unlawful possession of a firearm, assault with a weapon, and injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court acquitted Te Poono on a charge of murder. The primary legal issues before the court were whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention and, if not, to determine an appropriate finite sentence considering the totality of Te Poono’s offending.

The court deliberated on the nature and seriousness of Te Poono’s offending, his personal circumstances, and his extensive criminal history, which included methamphetamine-induced psychosis. Reports from health professionals indicated that while Te Poono’s mental health issues contributed to his current offending, controlling these issues could lessen his risk to the community. The court also considered Te Poono’s willingness to engage in treatment programs as a mitigating factor. Ultimately, the court decided against preventive detention, opting instead for a finite sentence. The sentence was calculated by establishing starting points for different sets of charges, applying adjustments for both aggravating and mitigating factors, and finally considering the totality of the offending to arrive at a final term of imprisonment.

The final sentence imposed by Collins J was eight years and six months’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment set at four years and nine months. This sentence accounts for the severity of Te Poono’s actions, his criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation through treatment programs. The court also ordered the destruction of the weapons used in the offending.

Orders