Legal Research
Cases
R v Te Rupe

R v Te Rupe

Case [2021] NZHC 788 14 April 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2020-063-001032

[2021] NZHC 788

THE QUEEN

v

MARE TE RUPE

Hearing: 14 April 2021

Appearances:

D McWilliam for the Crown

R O Gowing for the Defendant

Date of Minute:

14 April 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF JUSTICE POWELL

R v TE RUPE [2021] NZHC 788 [14 April 2021]

[1] Mare Te Rupe, you come up for sentence today on one charge of manslaughter,1 eight charges of attempting to wilfully pervert the course of justice;2 two charges of driving while disqualified (3rd or subsequent),3 and one charge of dangerous driving causing injury.4

[2] You pleaded guilty to these charges after accepting the sentence indication that I gave on 2 December 2020.5

[3] At the sentence indication hearing the focus was very much on the manslaughter and attempting to pervert the course of justice charges. As Ms Pollett explained to the Court this morning, I indicated starting points of seven and a half years’ imprisonment on the manslaughter charge and four years for the charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice. This amounted to 11 and a half years’ imprisonment, which I reduced to 10 and half years in line with the principle of totality. I noted that I would consider whether there were any personal mitigating factors warranting lowering this starting point when I received the information needed to make that analysis. Finally, I indicated I would reduce your sentence by 25 per cent if you pleaded guilty because it would mean that your guilty plea had been made at the first available opportunity.

[4] Although I provided a rationale for you on that day as regards each of those matters, because sentencing is a public function it is necessary to go back over the reasons for each of those conclusions, as well as going on to consider the additional matters that you have heard me discuss with counsel today.

The offending

[5] Apart from one of the driving while disqualified charges for which you have pleaded guilty, you are here today because of the events that occurred on 6 June 2020.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 158, 160(2), 171 and 177. Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 117(e). Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 31(1)(a) and 32(4). Maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $6000 and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for one year or more.
4      Land Transport Act 1998, s 36(1)(b). Maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $20,000 and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for one year or more.
5      R v Te Rupe [2020] NZHC 3171.

On that day you attended a memorial service near Whakatāne for your father who had passed away a year earlier. While at the service, you consumed alcohol and cannabis. After the service ended, you left with three acquaintances in your…

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 Rupe

Details

AGLC: R v Te Rupe [2021] NZHC 788
Case: [2021] NZHC 788
Decision Date: 14 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Tauranga Registry, Mare Te Rupe was sentenced for charges including manslaughter, attempting to wilfully pervert the course of justice, and driving while disqualified. The court heard that Te Rupe, while attending a memorial service and under the influence of alcohol and cannabis, took over driving from another individual. His reckless driving led to a fatal collision with an oncoming motorbike, killing the rider, Grant Wilson. Te Rupe subsequently attempted to interfere with witnesses while in custody, making phone calls to associates and threatening passengers to alter their testimonies.

The court's primary task was to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering both the manslaughter and the charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The judge found the aggravating factors of the offending to include excessive speed, disregard for passenger warnings, persistent bad driving, aggressive conduct, driving while disqualified, prior driving convictions, and the resulting death and injury. The starting point for the manslaughter charge was set at seven and a half years, while for the charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice, it was set at four years. After applying a 25% discount for an early guilty plea and an additional 5% for the offer to participate in restorative justice, the total sentence was set at seven years and four months' imprisonment.

The court also addressed personal mitigating factors, such as Te Rupe's background in a gang lifestyle and his expressed remorse. However, the court was skeptical about the genuineness of his remorse, particularly given his insistence that the death was an accident and his attempts to justify his actions. The court concluded that no further discount was warranted for personal circumstances, given Te Rupe's continued association with the gang and lack of clear intent to change his lifestyle. The remaining charges were to be served concurrently with the manslaughter sentence.

Orders