R v Walker - [2017] NZHC 2303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2015-090-4160 [2017] NZHC 2303

THE QUEEN

v

TAMATI TUREITE WALKER

Hearing: 22 September 2017

Appearances:

S McColgan for Crown
Q Duff for Defendant

Sentence:

22 September 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v Walker [2017] NZHC 2303 [22 September 2017]

[1] Tamati Tureite Walker: you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one

charge of arson, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.1

Facts

[2] Some time prior to 1 May 205 you formed a common intention to set fire to premises occupied by Henderson Mechanical and Tyres Ltd, a car mechanic’s business at 2 Trading Place, Henderson. You were involved purely for the money you were to be paid.

[3] On 1 May 2015, at around 5.00am, your associates and you travelled to the business and smashed in a door at the rear of the address. One of you - and I accept it was not you - then poured petrol inside the building and set it alight, causing a large fire to engulf the premises. This caused significant damage and it destroyed all of the 14 vehicles inside the mechanic’s shop at that time, 10 of which were owned by customers of the business.

[4] The damage caused to the premises and the loss suffered by the owner of the business has been estimated in the order of $1 million. The victim also says that the business has lost most of its customers and it has caused a great deal of stress and strain to him and to his family. The business had no income for some period after the fire and yet they were required to continue to pay employees. So the consequences of what you did were profound.

Submissions for the Crown

[5] It is submitted for the Crown, that an appropriate starting point is in the
vicinity of five years’ imprisonment, with no uplift for personal factors, and a discount of up to 20 per cent for your early guilty plea.

1 Crimes Act 1964, s 267(1)(c).

[6] The Crown argues that significant premeditation, the extent of the damage, and risk of harm to other businesses and people going to work at that time, are all aggravating features. The Crown emphasises the need for parity with your co- offender, Mr Turner, who I understand accepted that he had lit the fire, and who has been sentenced. It is accepted that none of your previous convictions are relevant to this sentencing.

Submissions for Mr Walker

[7] Mr Duff has argued on your behalf on the basis of decisions in other cases that a starting point of four and a half years’ imprisonment is appropriate. You have heard me say to him, however, that there was significant damage to the victim's premises. And while I accept that this was an industrial area, there is no greater risk to fire fighters than is inherent in any fire.…

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 Walker

Details

AGLC: R v Walker [2017] NZHC 2303
Case: [2017] NZHC 2303
Decision Date: 22 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Tamati Tureite Walker dealt with an arson offence committed against Henderson Mechanical and Tyres Ltd. Walker pleaded guilty to one charge of arson, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. The incident occurred on 1 May 2015 when Walker and his associates set fire to the premises, causing extensive damage estimated to be around $1 million and destroying 14 vehicles, 10 of which belonged to customers of the business. The Crown argued for a starting point of five years' imprisonment, while the defence submitted that a starting point of four and a half years' imprisonment was appropriate.

The court was required to decide on the appropriate starting point for sentencing, taking into account the relevant purposes and principles of sentencing. The court considered the degree of property damage, the degree of danger to any occupant or fire fighters, and the mental state of the offender. The court also considered the need for consistency in sentencing, the obligation to impose the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances, and the offender's personal circumstances. The court found that the appropriate starting point in this case was one of five years' imprisonment. The court also considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his remorse and his determination to use his time in prison to complete available programs.

The court sentenced Walker to three years and eight months' imprisonment, taking into account the defendant's early guilty plea and the impact of imprisonment on his children. The court noted that the sentence was longer than the end sentence imposed on Walker's co-offender, but there were other factors in his favour which did not apply in Walker's case. The court also considered that it was unrealistic to consider that Walker could meet an order for reparation.

Orders