THE QUEEN v ROGER JOHNSON REID [1999] NZCA 162 (26 August 1999)

IN THE court of appeal of new zealand

ca257/99

THE QUEEN

V

ROGER JOHNSON REID

Hearing:	26 August 1999
Coram:	Henry J Doogue J Panckhurst J
Appearances:	M J Behrens QC for the Appellant J C Pike for the Crown
Judgment:	26 August 1999

judgment of the court delivered by henry j

[1] The appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Napier to charges of kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, possession of a firearm with intent to commit a crime, and presenting a firearm.He was sentenced to and now appeals the effective term of 7 years imprisonment.

[2] For some time the appellant had had ongoing disputes with a number of government departments, forming the view that there was a conspiracy against him involving not only the departments but also politicians.

[3] On 7 December 1998 he entered the Hastings offices of the Member of Parliament for the Tukituku electorate for the purpose of taking him hostage. He had armed himself with a loaded 12 gauge pump-action shotgun.There was no shell in the firing chamber.

[4] On entering the office the appellant found only the electorate secretary in the office.He took her hostage at gun-point and held her there for 9-10 hours.The weapon was held against her neck and body for most of that time. She described being "hunched" into a chair while he sat below her with the gun barrel pressed into her neck.

[5] Due to the threat to the victim's safety police officers who responded to a call to the office retreated.The appellant was outwardly disturbed and irrational.Negotiations with the police continued during the incident these apparently doing nothing to change the appellant's behaviour or to calm him down.Eventually the appellant announced to the victim that he was going to leave, and, handing the weapon to her, did so.She had been extremely fearful that her life would end, and predictably what was a terrifying experience has had profound consequences for her.

[6] The appellant is 52 years of age with no history of previous offending other than some minor convictions relating to disputes with the Inland Revenue Department.He is described as an honest and hard working man, a good husband, father and employee, an assessment accepted by the sentencing Judge.

[7] The Judge referred to R v Firmin (CA241/97 29 October 1997) noting that such cases demand a strong deterrence element and that the seriousness of the offences undermined any personal circumstances.In Firmin this Court upheld a sentence of 7 years imprisonment for offending which had similarities to the present.In that case a sawn off shotgun (unloaded) was used in kidnapping and holding hostage for some 4 hours a member of the armed forces.The origin of his offending was grievances with the Defence Department.

[8] For the appellant it was submitted that the Judge erred in his comparison with and reliance on Firmin and failed to isolate factors which justified a shorter sentence than imposed in that case.It was contended that the Judge was wrong to observe that the present case was slightly worse than the Firmin case.Those observations must be put in context.The Judge had given careful consideration to the facts of the offending, and referred to Firmin as being very similar - which in many respects it was.He then said:

Despite all the skill and experience that your counsel has brought to his submissions, and I am appreciative of them, I cannot ignore the fact that in the Firmin case the Court of Appeal spoke of a seven year sentence as being at the lower end of the available range after taking into account all relevant mitigating factors.

I am not going to keep you here listening to me repeating things that counsel have been over in detail, but I am satisfied there is force in the argument that if a close comparison is to be made between this and the Firmin case then if anything this is slightly worse.

[9] This was no doubt in response to counsel's submission that a lesser sentence than that imposed in Firmin was justified.It is clear that the Judge was doing no more than saying there was no good reason for going below the lower end of the range which had been identified in Firmin. We can discern no error in the Judge's approach, or in his assessment of the relative or comparative seriousness of this offending.The Judge had properly identified the relevant factors of deterrence, effect on the victim, and protection of the public.All were relevant here, and a careful reading of the sentencing remarks does not persuade us that the Judge made any wrong assessment of their significance.Personal circumstances are of limited weight in this kind of offending, which must be met with a substantial sentence because of the seriousness of its very nature.The motivation behind this offence is clear, and the Judge was right to observe that as long as the motivation remained there remains a risk of future offending.He was also justified in his conclusion from the whole background and other material before the Court that the appellant's obsession may not be resolved.

[10] Although Firmin was a relevant authority, the sentencing process is not to be determined by a point by point comparison with one other similar case, and we do not understand the Judge to have approached his task in that way.What was to be determined was the appropriate term of imprisonment, applying established principle, and taking into account all relevant factors. That having been done, as it was here, the issue is whether the sentence was excessive.We are not so persuaded.When such allowance as is appropriate in the circumstances of this case is given to the guilty pleas, we are satisfied the sentence imposed was within the available range.The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Solicitors

M B Ryan, Palmerston North, for appellant

Crown Law Office, Wellington, for respondent