R v Tie - [2015] NZHC 802

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-004-13119 [2015] NZHC 802

THE QUEEN

v

JOSEPH TIE

Hearing: 23 April 2015

Appearances:

M J Hammer for Crown
M Scally for Defendant

Sentence:

23 April 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v TIE [2015] NZHC 802 [23 April 2015]

[1] Mr Tie, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one charge of being a member of a riot. That charge carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment. That charge was presented for the first time today. Up until then you had faced a charge of riotous damage, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment. By presenting the new charge the Crown obviously accepts that your culpability in relation to the offending to which you have now pleaded guilty is less than it previously thought.

Background

[2] The charge to which you pleaded guilty arises out of a riot that occurred at the Spring Hill Corrections Facility on the weekend of 1 June 2013. This caused significant damage to the facility that required repairs costing about $5 million.

[3] The riot occurred in a medium security unit containing two pods, each of which held approximately 45 prisoners. You were being held in one of those pods.

[4] The riot began when prisoners were released from their pods for morning exercise. At that point corrections officers noted that a number of prisoners appeared to be drunk. Fights broke out, and prison officers endeavoured to defuse the situation. From that point on a large number of prisoners joined in what became a riot. They smashed furniture and equipment and also caused significant concern to prison officers who were effectively held hostage in various areas of the unit. A number of fires were also lit, and this caused significant damage to the unit and its surrounds.

[5] At the end of the riot, 22 prisoners were charged with being involved in it. Your involvement was that you placed pieces of wood on a fire that had been lit in the yard by others. I therefore take your culpability to be significantly less than other persons who have appeared for sentence because you were not a ringleader, you did not start any fires and you played a relatively small part. You did, however, throw chairs and pieces of wood at windows in the staff base in an effort to smash them.

Starting point

[6] In fixing the starting point, I am guided to a large extent by other cases arising out of this incident. To the best of my knowledge, however, none of the other persons who have appeared before the courts for sentence have faced this particular charge. Others have faced charges of arson and riotous damage.

[7] The courts have selected starting points of around six years imprisonment for ringleaders and those who were involved in starting the fires. Those who have been involved in riotous damage have generally received starting points of around three years imprisonment.

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 Tie

Details

AGLC: R v Tie [2015] NZHC 802
Case: [2015] NZHC 802
Decision Date: 23 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Joseph Tie involved sentencing for the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to being a member of a riot that took place at the Spring Hill Corrections Facility in New Zealand on 1 June 2013. The riot caused significant damage, costing around $5 million in repairs. The defendant's involvement in the riot was relatively minor, as he placed pieces of wood on a fire lit by others and threw chairs and wood at windows in the staff base. The court needed to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the maximum penalty for the charge of being a member of a riot, which was two years imprisonment.

The primary legal issues were to determine an appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering the defendant's culpability and actions during the riot, and to adjust the sentence based on aggravating and mitigating factors. The court found that the defendant's culpability was less than that of the ringleaders and those who started the fires, but greater than those who merely participated in the riotous damage. The court also considered the defendant's previous convictions and his late guilty plea, ultimately deciding on a starting point of 16 months imprisonment, reduced by two months to reflect the defendant's attempt to extinguish a fire during the riot.

The court decided on a starting point of 16 months imprisonment, reduced by two months to account for the defendant's action of attempting to extinguish a fire during the riot. The court found no need for an uplift based on the defendant's previous convictions, as they were not sufficiently relevant to the current offence. The court allowed a discount of four months for the late guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of 12 months imprisonment, to be served cumulatively with the defendant's existing sentence. The court deemed a cumulative sentence fair, as it would make the defendant immediately eligible for parole, which was in line with the defendant's overall culpability.

Orders