Ratu v R
Case
•
[2016] NZCA 97
•7 April 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Ratu v The Queen [2016] NZCA 97
[2016] NZCA 97
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.
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.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Sentencing
-
Totality Principle
-
Cumulativity of Sentences
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Ratu v The Queen [2016] NZCA 97
Most Recent Citation
R v Keil [2024] NZHC 1777
Cases Citing This Decision
28
Taylor v R
[2018] NZCA 444
R v Keil
[2024] NZHC 1777
R v Ronaki
[2023] NZHC 2576
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
0
R v Thomas
[2015] NZHC 1783
R v Ratu
[2015] NZHC 79
Tryselaar v R
[2012] NZCA 353