R v Waru - [2017] NZHC 1265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-044-003940 [2017] NZHC 1265

THE QUEEN

v

PATRICK FREDRICK ABRAHAM WARU

Hearing: 9 June 2017

Appearances:

S L McColgan and R M Dixon for Crown
A J Maxwell-Scott for Mr Waru

Sentenced:

9 June 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
A J Maxwell-Scott, Auckland

R v WARU [2017] NZHC 1265 [9 June 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Waru, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to thirteen charges under the Crimes Act 1961. There were three charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1 The maximum penalty for each of those offences is 14 years’ imprisonment. There were two charges of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm2 – each subject to a maximum term of 10 years’ imprisonment; two charges of injuring with intent to injure3 – each subject to a maximum term of five years’ imprisonment; five charges of assault with intent to injure4 – each subject to a maximum term of three years’ imprisonment; and one
charge of assault with a weapon5 – also subject to a maximum term of three years’

imprisonment.

Factual background

[2] You are a sentenced prisoner in custody at Auckland Prison at Paremoremo. The charges against you arise from a violent attack by you and three other inmates on six corrections officers.

[3] The attack occurred on the afternoon of 16 October 2016. You and your co- offenders, who I will refer to as N, B and PM, were having “landing time”. You were all allowed out of your cells to socialise with other inmates and to stretch your legs. You asked corrections officers for a mop and a bucket. This request was not unusual, as cleaning supplies are routinely provided to inmates so they can clean their own areas.

[4] On this occasion, you and your co-offenders waited behind a grill while an officer went to get the mop and the bucket. When the officer returned and opened the grill, N grabbed onto the grill and forced it open. The officer was pushed to the ground and N jumped on top of him, punching him in the left eye. You joined N, punching the officer in the head. You were holding sharpened pieces of metal,
commonly known as “shanks”, in each hand. The shanks were tied to your hands

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 188(1) and 66(2).
2      Crimes Act, ss 189(1) and 66(2).
3      Crimes Act, ss 189(2) and 66(2).
4      Crimes Act, ss 193 and 66(2).
5      Crimes Act, ss 202C(1)(b) and 66(2).

with pieces of bedsheet. The officer suffered three puncture wounds to the back of his neck and two wounds to his hands. He also received bruising to his face.

[5] PM tried to jump on top of the first officer. He was pushed away by a second officer and he then punched the second officer in the head using a shank. You also attempted to stab this second officer. The…

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 Waru

Details

AGLC: R v Waru [2017] NZHC 1265
Case: [2017] NZHC 1265
Decision Date: 9 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Waru, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, concerns the sentencing of Patrick Fredrick Abraham Waru, a 26-year-old prisoner, who pleaded guilty to thirteen charges stemming from a violent attack on prison officers. The charges included multiple counts of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, injuring with intent, and assault. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and accountability, alongside the interests of the victims and the need for the offender's rehabilitation.

The court meticulously analyzed the aggravating and mitigating factors of Waru's case. Aggravating factors included the premeditated nature of the attack, the use of weapons, the extent of violence, and the targeting of prison officers. The court noted that Waru's extensive history of violent offending, including previous assaults on prison officers, further compounded the severity of the current charges. Conversely, mitigating factors considered included Waru's challenging upbringing and his efforts towards rehabilitation, such as his engagement in educational activities in prison.

After weighing these factors, the court established an initial starting point of eight years and six months’ imprisonment, uplifted by two years to account for the totality of Waru's offending. Additional uplifts for personal aggravating factors and a discount for guilty pleas and rehabilitative efforts resulted in a final sentence of seven years and 10 months’ imprisonment, to be served cumulatively with Waru's existing sentence. The court opted not to impose a minimum period of imprisonment, considering the cumulative sentence sufficient to meet the purposes of deterrence, denunciation, and community protection.

Orders