R v Timoti - [2022] NZHC 2667

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2021-070-1899

[2022] NZHC 2667

THE KING

v

DAVID TIMOTI

Hearing: 14 October 2022

Appearances:

S Teki-Clark for Crown D Goodlet for Defendant

Judgment:

14 October 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

R v TIMOTI [2022] NZHC 2667 [14 October 2022]

[1] Mr Timoti, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated burglary.1 The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years imprisonment.

[2] You pleaded guilty after I gave you a sentence indication on 18 May 2022.2 The sentence indication will be annexed to these sentencing remarks and will form part of them.

Background

[3] The factual basis on which I provided the sentence indication was contained in an agreed summary of facts. This recorded that the genesis of your offending was the fact that the complainant, to whom I shall refer as “A”, had allowed another person to store a caravan and bus on his rural property. The owner of the bus and caravan had been attempting to regain possession of the items, but his attempts were unsuccessful. That person then contactedpersons associated with the Rangitikei chapter of the Rebels Motorcycle Club. He asked them to assist him to recover his bus and caravan from A’s property. You became involved at this point because you were a senior member of that chapter of the gang.

[4] On 25 January 2021 you and four others travelled from Hunterville to the Tauranga area in a black BMW motor vehicle. At around 9 am on that date your vehicle was captured on CCTV footage at a service station in Rotorua. The vehicle then carried on to Tauranga, where you made contact with two females who had travelled down from Auckland. The two vehicles were then captured on CCTV film footage travelling towards A’s property in convoy.

[5] The vehicles arrived at A’s address at about 10.30 am. You and your associates entered the property by opening a gate. The two females remained near the gate whilst you and your associates drove up to the accommodation block on the property. You got out of the vehicle and went into the accommodation block, where you asked A’s partner for a glass of water. You then grabbed her by the hair and began punching her

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 232(1)(a).
2 R v Timoti [2022] NZHC 1092.

in the face and body. You repeatedly demanded that she hand over cash and you began looking through drawers in the accommodation block. You also took her cellphone and put it in your pocket.

[6] You removed a CCTV recording device from the accommodation block and smashed it to pieces in the shed with a golf club. At or about this point A’s partner managed to escape to a toilet, where she telephoned the police using A’s cellphone.

[7] Whilst this was going on your associates got out of…

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 Timoti

Details

AGLC: R v Timoti [2022] NZHC 2667
Case: [2022] NZHC 2667
Decision Date: 14 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Timoti pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated burglary and appeared for sentencing before the High Court of New Zealand. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years imprisonment. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence considering the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. Aggravating factors included premeditation, the involvement of gang members, use of weapons, and the sustained violence against three victims, resulting in significant injuries to the complainant. Mitigating factors included Timoti's disadvantaged upbringing, his decision to cease drug use and gang involvement, and his demonstrated remorse through a letter of apology to the victims. Based on the mitigating factors, the court decided to reduce the indicated sentence by 14 months, resulting in a final sentence of six years and eight months imprisonment. The court also directed that the reports made available at sentencing be provided to the prison and parole authorities to aid in offering programs to Timoti in prison and upon his release on parole.

Orders