R v Te Riini - [2018] NZHC 2593

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 2593

THE QUEEN

v

LIONEL TE RIINI

Hearing:
4 October 2018

(Heard at TAURANGA)

Appearances:

O M Salt for Crown
G McArthur for Defendant

Judgment:

4 October 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v TE RIINI [2018] NZHC 2593 [4 October 2018]

[1] Mr Te Riini, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty following a sentence indication to a charge of rioting.1

[2] The facts underpinning the charge are set out in the sentence indication decision and this will be annexed to, and form part of, my sentencing remarks. For that reason I do not propose to re-state the facts. The end result of the sentence indication was that I selected a starting point of 15 months imprisonment and allowed a discount of three months to reflect guilty pleas. This produced an end sentence of
12 months imprisonment. As a result, you are eligible for a sentence of community detention or home detention if your circumstances permit such sentences to be considered.

[3] I have now received an assessor’s report from which I consider an electronically monitored sentence is both available and appropriate in your case. I say that because your offending falls at the very bottom of the spectrum in terms of seriousness for offenders who were involved in the incident that gave rise to the charge to which you have pleaded guilty. I am also concerned to ensure you maximise your prospects of obtaining employment, because I see that as the best means by which you can avoid future involvement with gangs and futher offending.

[4] The real issue is whether I impose a sentence of community detention or home detention. In other cases arising out of the incidents giving rise to the charge you face I have selected a sentence of community detention where that has been necessary to accommodate the work requirements of offenders in a similar position to you. Your counsel advises me you have told him you have a job available at a local meatworks. Obviously, I would like you to be able to take that employment up, but in the absence of confirmation of a firm job offer from your employer, I am not prepared to proceed on your word alone. For that reason I propose to impose a sentence of home detention.

[5] I am aware, however, that it is possible for you to obtain paid employment away from your home address notwithstanding the fact that you will be serving a sentence of home detention. I would therefore encourage and urge you to ensure you

1 R v Kingi & Te Riini [2018] NZHC 1901.

apply for that job as soon as you begin your sentence. The necessary arrangements can then be made for you to leave your address each day to go to work.

[6] I propose to impose a sentence of six months home detention, being…

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 Riini

Details

AGLC: R v Te Riini [2018] NZHC 2593
Case: [2018] NZHC 2593
Decision Date: 4 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Te Riini, the defendant faced sentencing following a guilty plea to a charge of rioting. The incident in question occurred in Whakatane on 27 January 2017, involving a confrontation between members of the Mongrel Mob and the Black Power gang. The defendant was part of a group that confronted the funeral procession armed with sticks, bats, and missiles. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering aggravating and mitigating factors, and deciding between community detention or home detention as a suitable alternative to imprisonment. The starting point was set at 15 months imprisonment, reflecting the defendant's involvement in the riot with knowledge of prior serious incidents.

The court assessed whether any uplift should be applied for previous convictions, ultimately deciding against it due to the minor nature of those offences. The defendant received a discount of three months for early guilty pleas and for being subject to electronic monitoring bail restrictions. This resulted in an effective sentence of 12 months imprisonment, making home detention a viable alternative. The court opted for home detention, considering the defendant's potential employment and the need to avoid future gang involvement and reoffending. The sentence imposed was six months home detention, with specific conditions to ensure compliance and safety. This decision balanced the need for punishment with the aim of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders