R v Wereta - [2014] NZHC 2555

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-044-002640 [2014] NZHC 2555

THE QUEEN

v

RAWIRI DAVID WERETA

Appearances:
S L McColgan for Crown

P H H Tomlinson for Prisoner

Date:

20 October 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF COURTNEY J

R v WERETA [2014] NZHC 2555 [20 October 2014]

[1] Rawiri David Wereta, you appear today for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1 The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment. You also have pleaded guilty to one charge of assault with intent to injure2 for which the maximum penalty is three years’ imprisonment. You were already, and still are, serving sentences totalling 10 years 6 months for other serious offending when you committed these offences. These included serious violent offences for which you received a first strike warning. Upon your conviction for the present offending you received a second strike warning. As a result, the sentence that I impose today will have to be served in full without parole.3

[2] The offending occurred in a cell in the middle-west landing in D block in Paremoremo Prison on 14 May 2013. You occupied a cell in that part of the landing, as did your two co-offenders, one of whom has already been sentenced4 and the other who is to be sentenced later this week.5 You, however, were the principal offender and I will spend a moment describing what happened that day.

[3] The victims, Tangi Nikoia and Tyrone Makimare, also occupied cells on the middle-west landing. Mr Nikoia had only moved to the landing that day. There was evidently some incident between you and Mr Nikoia. Your counsel has indicated that he had shown you a weapon presumably with some implication as to how he had would use it, but since neither you nor he made any statement to the Police I do not know for sure what went on between the two of you. Whatever did go on I take as an explanation but you and I both understand that it can be no excuse. Although I recognise that life in D block carries with it these kinds of incidents more commonly than anyone would like.

[4] The events that occurred on the landing were recorded on the CCTV footage and the events that occurred in the cell were known from the statement of the other

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1).
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 193.
3      The circumstances of the offending and Mr Wereta’s own circumstances are such that no issue
arises as to whether this would be manifestly unjust.
4      R v Tamihana [2014] NZHC 89.
5      Lewis Warren Isaaka, who was convicted following a jury trial in September 2014.

victim, Mr Makimare. Shortly before the attack you and a co-offender, Mr Isaaka, were seen on the CCTV footage standing at the grille that separates the landing from the correctional officers’ station. You appeared to be tampering with the lock, presumably in an attempt to…

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 Wereta

Details

AGLC: R v Wereta [2014] NZHC 2555
Case: [2014] NZHC 2555
Decision Date: 20 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rawiri David Wereta appeared in the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland to receive sentencing after pleading guilty to charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and assault with intent to injure. The maximum penalties for these offences are 14 and three years’ imprisonment, respectively. Wereta was already serving sentences for other serious offences, including violent crimes, and received a second strike warning upon his conviction for the present offences, meaning he would have to serve the sentence without parole. The court heard that the offending occurred in Paremoremo Prison, where Wereta and two co-offenders attacked two other inmates, Tangi Nikoia and Tyrone Makimare, in their cells. Wereta was the principal offender and used a weapon during the attack.

The court had to decide the appropriate sentence, taking into account the gravity of the offending, the seriousness of the type of offence, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court referred to previous cases involving similar offending to establish a starting point of nine years’ imprisonment for the attack on Nikoia, with an additional uplift for the totality of the offending, bringing the provisional starting point to nine years six months. The court also considered Wereta's personal circumstances and positive steps he had taken, such as attending a psychologist to address his anger issues. The final sentence was six years eight months, to be served cumulatively with the sentence Wereta was already serving.

The court concluded that the sentence met the objectives of deterrence and denunciation, and the need to effectively manage a prison environment. The court also indicated that, had the offending not been a second-stage offence, a minimum period of 50% would have been imposed for the parole period. The court encouraged Wereta to stay on a positive path and leave gang life behind.

Orders