IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2017-087-131 [2018] NZHC 2593

THE QUEEN

v

LIONEL TE RIINI

Hearing:	4 October 2018
(Heard at TAURANGA)	

Appearances:	
O M Salt for Crown
G McArthur for Defendant	

Judgment:	
4 October 2018	

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v TE RIINI [2018] NZHC 2593 [4 October 2018]

[1]       Mr Te Riini, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty following a sentence indication to a charge of rioting.1

[2]       The  facts  underpinning the  charge are  set  out in  the  sentence  indication decision and this will be annexed to, and form part of, my sentencing remarks.  For that reason I do not propose to re-state the facts.   The end result of the sentence indication was that I selected a starting point of 15 months imprisonment and allowed a discount of three months to reflect guilty pleas.  This produced an end sentence of
12 months imprisonment.  As a result, you are eligible for a sentence of community detention  or home  detention  if  your  circumstances  permit  such  sentences  to  be considered.

[3]       I  have  now  received  an  assessor’s  report  from  which  I  consider  an electronically monitored sentence is both available and appropriate in your case. I say that because your offending falls at the very bottom of the spectrum in terms of seriousness for offenders who were involved in the incident that gave rise to the charge to which you have pleaded guilty.  I am also concerned to ensure you maximise your prospects of obtaining employment, because I see that as the best means by which you can avoid future involvement with gangs and futher offending.

[4]       The real issue is whether I impose a sentence of community detention or home detention. In other cases arising out of the incidents giving rise to the charge you face I have selected a sentence of community detention where that has been necessary to accommodate the work requirements of offenders in a similar position to you.  Your counsel advises me you have told him you have a job available at a local meatworks. Obviously, I would like you to be able to take that employment up, but in the absence of confirmation of a firm job offer from your employer, I am not prepared to proceed on your word alone. For that reason I propose to impose a sentence of home detention.

[5]       I am aware, however, that it is possible for you to obtain paid employment away from your home address notwithstanding the fact that you will be serving a sentence of home detention.  I would therefore encourage and urge you to ensure you

1	R v Kingi & Te Riini [2018] NZHC 1901.

apply for that job as soon as you begin your sentence.  The necessary arrangements can then be made for you to leave your address each day to go to work.

[6]       I propose to impose a sentence of six months home detention, being one-half of the prison sentence you would otherwise serve.  This reflects the fact that you will be required to serve the whole of the sentence of home detention, whereas you would have been eligible for automatic release from prison after serving six months of your sentence.

Sentence

[7]       On the charge to which you have pleaded guilty, you are sentenced to six months home detention. The sentence is subject to the following conditions:

1.        You are to travel directly from Court to the nominated address and you are to await the arrival of the security officer there.

2.        You are to reside at that address 24 hours per day and seven days per week and can only leave the address with the prior written consent or your probation officer.

3.        You are to remain within the monitoring boundaries of your home detention address at all times unless given approval to leave by the probation officer.

4.        You are not to possess or consume alcohol or drugs not prescribed to you.

5.        You are to attend and complete any programme or counselling as directed by a probation officer; and

6.        You are to attend and complete any education or training programmes as directed by a probation officer.

[8]	Stand down.

Lang J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
G C McArthur, Barrister, Tauranga

NOTE:  PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND OF THE REQUEST FOR A SENTENCING INDICATION IN ANY NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE IS PROHIBITED BY SECTION 634 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT
2011 UNTIL THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN SENTENCED OR THE CHARGE DISMISSED.  SEE http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest /DLM3865734.html

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2017-087-131 [2018] NZHC 1901

THE QUEEN

v

TYSON KINGI LIONEL TE RIINI

Hearing:	30 July 2018

Appearances:	W T Nabney for Mr Kingi
G McArthur for Mr Te Riini

Judgment:	30 July 2018

SENTENCE INDICATION OF LANG J

[1]       Mr Te Riini and Mr Kingi are charged with rioting.   Their trial is due to commence  on  20 August  2018.    Both  defendants  have  now  sought  a  sentence indication.  This is an indication of the sentence that would be imposed in the event that the defendants entered guilty pleas to the charges within a very short time of the indication being given.

The charges

[2]       Each defendant was charged after he became involved at the tail-end of a series of events that occurred in and around the Whakatane area on 27 January 2017.  On that date, a large number of cars filed with members of the Mongrel Mob and their supporters arrived in Whakatane as part of a funeral procession. During the course of the day members and associates of the rival Black Power group, with whom both defendants are associated, decided they would confront the funeral procession. Several incidents occurred before the one in which Mr Te Riini and Mr Kingi became involved.   The most serious of these occurred in Valley Road, Whakatane.   This involved a member of the Black Power gang firing two shots towards a line of police officers and a large group of members of the Mongrel Mob.  Fortunately, no one was injured as a result of that incident.

[3]       Shortly after that incident, the funeral procession moved on.  Mr Te Riini and Mr Kingi were part of a group associated with the Black Power gang who went to an alleyway running from Valley Road through to Douglas Street. About ten to 15 Black Power gang members and associates again confronted the funeral procession armed with sticks, bats and missiles. This disrupted the procession and brought it to a halt.

[4]       The  police  became  involved  immediately  and  pursued  the  Black  Power members down the alleyway. Police staff who came into the area saw the Black Power members and associates running out of the alleyway carrying sticks and bats.  Once they saw the police approaching they discarded their weapons. Both defendants were seen leaving the alleyway and were arrested at that point.

Starting point

[5]       The starting point for this offending is informed by that selected in relation to

Mr O’Toole, another person who was only involved in the Douglas Street incident.2

In that case I selected a starting point of 15 months imprisonment.  I acknowledged that the involvement of the offender had occurred late in the day, and after the most serious of the earlier incidents. On the other hand, the defendants participated in a riot knowing that the other incidents had occurred.  The starting point needed to reflect their decision to become involved having that knowledge.

[6]       I see no reason to distinguish between the starting point selected in relation to Mr O’Toole and that to be selected in the present case.  I therefore select a starting point of 15 months imprisonment for both defendants.

Aggravating factors

[7]       The Crown suggests that a modest uplift can be applied to reflect previous convictions. Both defendants have previous convictions, but I consider the sentences imposed in relation to these reflect that they must have been at the “nuisance” end of the scale.  For that reason I would not apply an uplift to reflect previous convictions.

Mitigating factors

Mr Kingi

[8]       Mr Kingi seeks a discount for guilty pleas and the fact that he was subject to EM bail restrictions for approximately eight months. I would apply a discount of three months to reflect the EM bail restrictions.  This reduces the sentence to one of 12 months imprisonment.

[9]       The  Crown  suggests  a  discount  of  15  per  cent  to  reflect  guilty  pleas. Ordinarily, that submission would have force because the pleas would come late in the day.  In the present case, however, there is very real value to both the Crown and the community in having these relatively minor charges removed from the trial that is due

2	R v O’Toole [2018] NZHC 1494.

to commence on 20 August 2018.  For that reason I would apply a discount of three months, being 20 per cent, but rounded up to reflect a guilty plea by Mr Kingi.

Mr Te Riini

[10]     I apply the same discount in relation to Mr Te Riini. This reduces the sentence in his case to one of 12 months imprisonment.

[11]     Mr McArthur is anxious to ensure a sentence of home detention is available in relation to Mr Te Riini. A sentence of 12 months duration means the prospect of home detention is available. Whether or not it is an appropriate sentence in this case would depend on several factors.  These include the appropriateness of any address Mr Te Riini might put forward in support of a submission that he be sentenced to home detention.  I would therefore leave that issue to be determined at sentencing.

Acceptance of sentence indications

[12]     Counsel are to file and serve memoranda no later than 3 pm on Thursday
2 August 2018 indicating whether their clients accept the indication. If the indications are accepted, both defendants will need to attend the criminal callover in the High Court at Rotorua on Friday 3 August 2018 at 9 am when their pleas would be taken.

Lang J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
W T Nabney, Barrister, Tauranga
Webby & Associates, Tauranga
G C McArthur, Tauranga