Ratu v R

Case [2016] NZCA 97 7 April 2016

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA535/2015
[2016] NZCA 97

BETWEEN	MATTHEW ROSS RATU Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA450/2015
BETWEEN	EDWARD ZBEDO THOMAS Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	11 February 2016
Court:	French, Simon France and Ellis JJ
Counsel:	M J English for Appellant Ratu C J Tennet for Appellant Thomas M J Lillico and S L Graham for Respondent
Judgment:	7 April 2016 at 12.30pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appellant in CA535/2015 is granted an extension of time to appeal.
BThe appeal against sentence in CA450/2015 is dismissed.
CThe appeal against sentence in CA535/2015 is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Introduction

The appellants, Mr Thomas and Mr Ratu, pleaded guilty in the High Court to charges arising out of the 2013 riots at Spring Hill Corrections Facility.
Mr Thomas was sentenced by Faire J to a term of imprisonment of five years and two months’ imprisonment for arson and causing riotous damage.[1]
[1]R v Thomas [2015] NZHC 1783.
Mr Ratu was sentenced by Lang J to two years and five months’ imprisonment for causing riotous damage.[2]
[2]R v Ratu [2015] NZHC 79.
Both now appeal their respective sentences. The Court directed the appeals be heard together.

Factual background

The riot began when prison officers were assaulted as they attempted to stop two fights that had broken out between prisoners in Unit 16B.
The assaults developed into a full-scale riot lasting over six hours. The rioters caused extensive damage to the prison. They fashioned weapons by breaking furniture and then used the weapons to smash the building and other property. The rioters also lit several fires. The fire spread, endangering the lives of staff and other prisoners still detained in their cells. Eventually the authorities were able to clear the unit so the Fire Service could prevent the fire from spreading any further.
The damage was so extensive the unit had to be demolished and 89 prisoners relocated to other facilities. The cost of repair was estimated at $5 million.
Neither Mr Ratu nor Mr Thomas was involved in the assaults on the prison officers.
However, they were involved in a number of events during the riot, both together and separately. These were usefully summarised in the Crown submissions. The accuracy of the summary was not disputed and is set out here accordingly.[3]
[3]Contrary to a submission by Mr Tennet at the hearing, the summary of facts states Mr Thomas did read the files he and others took from the staff base.
Combined participation
14.1Together with others, Mr Thomas and Mr Ratu walked around compound C randomly smashing the glass on the grills and doors to each cell.
14.2Together with others, they collected items from around the
compound and added these to the fire (although Mr Ratu is not
charged with arson).
14.3Together with one other, they climbed out of the staff base window carrying TVs and keyboards and threw them out into the pod. They…

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 Ratu v R

Details

AGLC: Ratu v The Queen [2016] NZCA 97
Case: [2016] NZCA 97
Decision Date: 7 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellants Mr Thomas and Mr Ratu, who had pleaded guilty to charges arising from the 2013 Spring Hill Corrections Facility riots, appealed against their respective sentences. Mr Thomas was sentenced to five years and two months’ imprisonment for arson and causing riotous damage, while Mr Ratu was sentenced to two years and five months’ imprisonment for causing riotous damage. The court heard both appeals together and considered the legal issues raised by the appellants, including the appropriateness of the sentences imposed and the application of totality principles.

The court found that Mr Ratu's sentence was appropriate and did not require a discount for totality. The court noted that the Spring Hill prison riots were the worst in New Zealand's history, and Mr Ratu took a very active part in them. The court also considered the injuring with intent to injure offence, which was serious and involved a prolonged attack on a man with blows and kicks to the head and then stealing from him. The court found that Mr Ratu's extensive criminal history and the lack of remorse shown in relation to the 2014 incident were significant aggravating factors.

The court found that Mr Thomas' sentence was also appropriate. The court noted that the sentence imposed was cumulative on a sentence of five and a half years, which Mr Thomas was serving at the time of the riot. The court found that an adjustment for totality was not warranted, as to do so would undermine the principle that a stern response to offending in a prison environment is required. The court also found that the discounts given for the guilty pleas were appropriate, and that the uplift of 12 months for the riotous damage charge was amply justified.

The court dismissed both appeals against sentence and granted Mr Ratu an extension of time to appeal. The final orders of the court were that Mr Ratu's application for an extension of time to appeal was granted, and that both Mr Ratu's and Mr Thomas' appeals against sentence were dismissed.

Orders