R v Thompson - [2022] NZHC 3091

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-092-11754

[2022] NZHC 3091

THE KING

v

SEAN CONRAD THOMPSON

Hearing: 24 November 2022

Appearances:

C P Howard for Crown J Ding for Defendant

Sentence:

24 November 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R v THOMPSON [2022] NZHC 3091 [24 November 2022]

[1] Mr Thompson, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty during your trial to one representative charge of intentional damage to property in circumstances where you knew, or ought to have known, that danger to life may result,1 one charge of aggravated burglary,2 and one charge of participating in an organised criminal group.3 The charges of intentional damage and participating in an organised criminal group carry maximum sentences of ten years imprisonment. The charge of aggravated burglary carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment.

Background

[2] The charges were laid following a series of events that occurred in Otara on the afternoon of 20 November 2020. On that date you drove from Hamilton to Auckland as part of a convoy of vehicles that travelled to an address in Mangere. You joined the convoy at a service station in Mercer, where you were seen socialising with the occupants of other vehicles that had travelled there from Hamilton.

[3] After leaving Mercer you travelled in the convoy to Bombay, where you shared a meal with those in the other vehicles. The convoy then travelled to an address in Mangere. This was occupied by Mr Michael Crawford, a leading figure in the Killer Beez organisation. Your vehicle was depicted in CCTV film footage travelling away from that address approximately 15 minutes later. It was subsequently filmed in the vicinity of a residential address in Blampied Road. Persons from another vehicle entered that address carrying firearms. It is evident from what they said to the occupants of the address that they were searching for somebody who, fortunately, was not present at the time.

[4] Your vehicle was then filmed turning into Pearl Baker Drive, where shots were fired a short time later by a person or persons in another convoy at a residential address believed to be occupied by a person associated with the Tribesmen motorcycle gang. At or around the same time, other convoys of vehicles travelled to addresses in Otara Road and Capstick Road. Occupants of those vehicles fired numerous shots at residential addresses in these streets. Those addresses were also believed to be

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 269(1).
2      Section 232.
3      Section 98A.

occupied by persons associated with the Tribesmen gang. The attacks on the three residential addresses caused damage in the form of broken windows and bullet holes to the exterior of the properties.

[5] You and the other persons involved in these events then left the South Auckland area and maintained a low profile whilst the police investigated the shootings.

Starting point

[6] Your culpability lies in the fact that you were…

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 Thompson

Details

AGLC: R v Thompson [2022] NZHC 3091
Case: [2022] NZHC 3091
Decision Date: 24 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendant, Sean Conrad Thompson, was sentenced following his guilty plea to charges of intentional damage to property in circumstances where danger to life may result, aggravated burglary, and participating in an organised criminal group. The charges stemmed from a series of coordinated attacks on residential properties in South Auckland on 20 November 2020, orchestrated by the defendant as part of a gang-related vendetta.

The legal issues the court had to decide included the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the influence of aggravating factors such as the premeditated nature of the crime and the use of firearms, and the consideration of mitigating factors, including the defendant's background, his acceptance of responsibility through guilty pleas, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court had to balance these considerations to arrive at a just sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offending while also taking into account the defendant's personal circumstances and prospects for reform.

In delivering the sentence, the court first established a starting point of six years nine months imprisonment, considering the defendant's culpability similar to that of other participants in the coordinated attacks, but adjusting for the absence of direct evidence of his involvement in firing shots or entering properties. The court then applied an uplift of six months to account for the defendant's previous conviction for a similar offence, indicating a failure to learn from past punishment. Mitigating factors, such as the defendant's disadvantaged upbringing, his efforts towards rehabilitation in prison, and his guilty pleas, resulted in a discount of one year two months and an additional 15 per cent reduction for the timing of his guilty pleas. The final sentence imposed was five years imprisonment, to be served concurrently on all charges, resulting in an effective term of five years.

This decision underscores the court's approach to sentencing in gang-related offences, taking into account both the gravity of the crimes and the individual circumstances of the offender, with a view towards deterrence, public protection, and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders