Police v Tawhara [2017] NZDC 11521 (31 May 2017)

Last Updated: 10 October 2017

EDITORIAL NOTE: SOME NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT ROTORUA

CRI-2016-063-004248

CRI-2015-063-002132 [2017] NZDC 11521

NEW ZEALAND POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Prosecutors

v

TAKURUA TAMA TAWHARA

_Defendant

Hearing:	31 May 2017
Appearances:	Sergeant T Rei for the Prosecutor New Zealand Police M Richmond for the Prosecutor Department of Corrections M Hine for the Defendant
Judgment:	31 May 2017

_{NOTES OF JUDGE G C HOLLISTER-JONES ON SENTENCING}

[1] Takurua Tama Tawhara, you appear for sentence today at the age of 20 on the following charges. On 21 September 2016, burglary of the [victim premises] at Murupara; 15 October 2016, driving whilst disqualified; and on 6 January 2017, two offences of cultivation of cannabis. You are to be resentenced on a sentence of community work imposed for failure to answer District Court bail, driving whilst disqualified, and breach of community work. You were sentenced there to 150 hours and you only completed six and a half.

[2] In respect of the offending of the [victim premises] at Murupara, this was unoccupied in the early hours of 21 September last year, you entered there and you

_{went through an office looking for cash, tried to set alight some papers and you}

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v TAKURUA TAMA TAWHARA [2017] NZDC 11521 [31 May 2017]

removed some cigarette lighters. On 15 October last year, you drove whilst disqualified and you were stopped during a routine traffic stop. On 6 January, there was a search warrant at your place, 12 cannabis plants were found. At your grandmother’s, four established cannabis plants ranging from 20 centimetres to

50 centimetres, then nearby, another 50 plants, being seedlings.

[3] In respect of your history, as I said, you are only aged now 20 and you have had 12 convictions since 2015; five for driving, two for violence and four for non-compliance. So when I approach this sentencing, I have to take into account the need to make you accountable, to try to promote in you a sense of responsibility, to deter you and others from burglary and disqualified driving, to think of consistency and the least restrictive outcome, especially given your age.

[4] There are two pre-sentence reports and your counsel sets those out in his submissions and the first, dated 28 March, in which you say that the cannabis was for your personal use, that you regretted the burglary, that you just happened to be there, that in respect of the driving whilst disqualified, that was just essentially a Murupara thing and in respect of the breach of community work, you thought you were working. The first pre-sentence report did not make good reading. You have been remanded in custody since 9 January. The second pre-sentence report makes better reading and it shows that you have some remorse for this offending, and that you want to engage in rehabilitation. You were open to reparation and that there was a change in attitude since you have been remanded in custody. So that is significant and I take that into account. The second pre-sentence report, as a result, recommends home detention and community work.

[5] Your counsel’s submissions draw attention to the aggravating features that the burglary was committed whilst subject to a sentence of community work. The cultivation of cannabis offending was whilst you were on bail for burglary and already subject to a sentence.

[6] Your counsel suggests that the cannabis cultivation is what is called the lead offence here. That is at the lower end of what is called band 2 of a higher Court case

called R v Terewi1 and your counsel emphasises the burglary of the commercial premises involved loss which was minor. Your counsel accepts the uplift for the other offending and emphasises your guilty plea and submits home detention if the end sentence was less than two years.

[7] I have assessed that the two lead offences here are the cultivation of cannabis committed whilst on bail. There is no clear evidence here of a commercial purpose, but given that there were two addresses and the weight, the plant stock suggests an element of commercial purpose. However, I consider that I can take a starting point of 18 months in relation to the cannabis offending.

[8] The burglary was different in type and unconnected and was of a disused building, very little taken. I assess that at 12 months cumulative on the cannabis.

[9] The disqualified driving was your second offence and that I assess as six weeks cumulative.

[10] On the resentencing, that was for 150 hours of community work, which you had done six. I include the punitive element for the breach and that is another six weeks cumulative. So that takes a total of 33 months. There is no uplift for your previous offending. I give you a full discount for plea. That results in an end sentence of 24 months.

[11] That means that home detention can now be considered. I agree with the report writer that home detention suits your rehabilitative needs and is the least restrictive outcome here. I take into account the four months, three weeks you have spent in custody. When that is taken into account, I am sentencing you to four months home detention and 80 hours of community work, and I impose eight months disqualification and direct a s 129B notice.

_{[12] I cancel the previous sentence.}

1 R v Terewi [1999] NZCA 92; [1999] 3 NZLR 62

[13] The post detention conditions are to complete any programmes.

G C Hollister-Jones

District Court Judge