R v Tucker - [2021] NZHC 3510

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-063-2105

[2021] NZHC 3510

THE QUEEN

v

THORNE TUCKER

Hearing: 16 December 2021

Appearances:

A McConachy for Crown B Foote for Defendant

Judgment:

16 December 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

R v TUCKER [2021] NZHC 3510 [16 December 2021]

[1] Mr Tucker, at 18 years of age you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a charge of kidnapping. The Crown offers no evidence on the remaining charges that you currently face and I make an order under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 discharging you on those charges.

[2] You entered your guilty plea after a sentence indication given by Katz J on 24 June 2021.1 In that indication the Judge adopted a starting point for your offending of three years two months imprisonment. She made an allowance of 25 per cent, or
9.5 months, for your guilty pleas. She left remaining mitigating factors to be assessed in the event that you entered guilty pleas.

The facts

[3] Your offending arose as a result of your relationship with your then partner, Ms Daisy Dixon. Her mother is Ms Rickylee Dixon. In 2020 Ms Rickylee Dixon became angry when she believed that the female victim had stolen methamphetamine from her. She devised a scheme by which the victim would be kidnapped using force and then beaten up. She hoped this would result in the victim’s father paying her money as compensation for the stolen methamphetamine.

[4] This resulted in two separate incidents in which Ms Rickylee Dixon, your partner Daisy and other associates kidnapped the victim. On each occasion she was detained for some hours and subjected to a severe beating. The Crown does not contend you were involved in the first incident, which occurred in September 2020. However, you were involved in the second incident which began on the afternoon and evening of 21 October 2020 and continued the following day.

[5] Your involvement began when you arrived at a motel where Ms Rickylee Dixon was staying. The victim had been taken to the motel the previous evening and kept overnight. She was then subjected to a severe beating by several members of Ms Dixon’s group at the motel. The Crown does not contend you were involved in any of

1 R v Tucker [2021] NZHC 1548.

the physical violence inflicted on the victim. However, you had been present earlier in the day when the victim had been placed in a vehicle and driven to a place where the group had arranged to meet the victim’s father to obtain more money from him. For whatever reason the meeting never took place and the group returned to the motel unit.

[6] You are seen on CCTV returning to the motel unit at 9.57 am. You then left a few minutes later at 10 am. It is not known when you arrived back at…

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 Tucker

Details

AGLC: R v Tucker [2021] NZHC 3510
Case: [2021] NZHC 3510
Decision Date: 16 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Thorne Tucker appeared before the High Court of New Zealand in Rotorua for sentencing after pleading guilty to a charge of kidnapping. The court was required to determine an appropriate starting point for sentencing, assess the aggravating and mitigating factors, and decide on the final sentence. The starting point was set at three years and two months imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the crime but considering Tucker's lesser role compared to others involved. Aggravating factors included the violence inflicted on the victim, the vulnerability of the victim, and the severity of the injuries. Mitigating factors considered were Tucker's age at the time of the offence, his difficult upbringing, and his involvement in criminal activities from a young age. The court applied discounts for these mitigating factors, resulting in a final sentence of 12 months imprisonment. Tucker was also subject to special release conditions upon his release, which included restrictions on associating with the Black Power gang.

Orders