Police v Maaka [2017] NZDC 11524 (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-2017-063-000956 [2017] NZDC 11524

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Prosecutor

v

K-CI JAMIROQUAI MAAKA

_Defendant

Hearing:	31 May 2017
Appearances:	Sergeant R Rei for the Prosecutor L Te Kani for the Defendant
Judgment:	31 May 2017

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

[1] Mr K-Ci Maaka, at the age of 19, you appear for sentence today for the following offences. On 28 November 2016, unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle. On 24 December 2016, burglary at [address 1 deleted]. On 15 February 2016, burglary at [address 1 deleted], again. On 9 March 2017, burglary at [address 2 deleted]. On 11 March 2017, burglary at [address 3 deleted], Rotorua and on 13

March 2017, burglary at the Tauranga Direct Road.

[2] The facts are is that on 6 December 2016, a Holden Commodore car was stolen. You took it out to Murupara with an associate and it was dumped there. On

23 December 2016, there was a burglary at [address 1 deleted], Rotorua. It was in the early hours of that morning. You entered the house and entered the bedrooms, took a PlayStation, iPad and iPhone. Then on 14 February during the night, you

_{went back to [address 1 deleted]. You went inside through an unlocked door. You}

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v K-CI JAMIROQUAI MAAKA [2017] NZDC 11524 [31 May 2017]

went into the kitchen area and one of the occupants was up in the lounge and awake using an iPad, you and your associate continued the burglary, taking a wallet, iPhone and bag and a PayWave card which was later used. Then on 9 March at 11.00 am on a Thursday, you went to [address 2 deleted]. You went inside there and took watches, fragrances, jewellery and clothing. Then on Saturday 11 March 2017 at

10.30 am, you went to [address 3 deleted]. You ripped a TV from the wall, power tools were taken and a freezer with meat. Then on 13 March, you went to an address on the Tauranga Direct Road and entered the shed. Three motocross bikes were taken to the value of $19,500.

[3] There are no victim impact statements. There is a request for reparation from the owner of [address 2 deleted].

[4] You are only aged 19. In 2016, you were sentenced for four matters; three on

20 July, possession of an offensive weapon, possession of instruments for conversion and another charge of possession of offensive weapon. On 29 September, convicted of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle and then this year, careless use of a motor vehicle.

[5] In sentencing you, I have got to hold you accountable for this, promote in you a sense of responsibility, denounce the conduct, especially domestic burglaries, deter you and others from committing domestic burglaries, protect the community from burglars. I have got to assess the gravity of this and sentence you in a consistent way, consider the effects on the victims and have regard to the least restrictive outcome, especially given your age.

[6] I now turn to assess the aggravating and mitigating features. The aggravating features here are there are five domestic burglaries. Four were committed with others. The 2 [address 1 deleted] burglaries were with the occupants in the house. The first, they were sleeping and the second, one of the occupants was still up and you continued. I have got to have regard to the extent of the loss. Each involved significant loss and there is a list of items on my file here at [address 2 deleted];

$500 cash, an iPad, five men’s watches, I think 34 ladies watches, six lots of perfume, leather bags and clothing. Then a long list of jewellery, including an

engagement ring, antique silver ring, wedding bands, bangles, so numerous items of jewellery. Then the three bikes at the Tauranga Direct Road burglary valued at

$19,500. I conclude that the Tauranga Direct Road burglary was targeted. You went to this rural address. You went to the shed and three valuable bikes were there and were taken. I can find no mitigating circumstances of the offending.

[7] There are two pre-sentence reports dated 11 May and 17 May. The 11 May report concludes that there is a high likelihood of re-offending and it states that you say the reason is you only wanted food and you denied taking anything more. I do not accept that, given the extensive loss of property here. The report says you use methamphetamine daily, but deny that the methamphetamine use has anything to do with this. I conclude that your methamphetamine use and your gang connections provide the only explanation for this. This was far too extensive offending with far too many valuable items taken to be burglaries for food.

[8] In relation to your lawyer’s submissions, he draws my attention to the fact that home detention is no longer viable. He has referred to a sentencing indication for one of your co-offenders of about three years, but I do not have details there of what exactly the charges were for that offender, what exactly the circumstances were of that offender’s involvement. Your counsel accepts you are going to be sentenced to imprisonment. He says you are remorseful, you want to say sorry, but that is only something that I have picked up today. It is not evident from the pre-sentence reports.

[9] Looking at this, my first task is to decide whether this should be concurrent or cumulative sentencing. I have decided that due to the offences being similar and some closely connected in time, that a concurrent approach is required.

[10] I now take the lead offence as the second burglary of [address 1 deleted]. I refer to the Court of Appeal decision of Arahanga v R1 which states that when assessing the seriousness of a domestic burglary, a significant aggravating feature is

_{the heightened risk of confrontation with occupants. The High Court there said that}

1 Arahanga v R [2012] NZCA 480

for domestic burglaries, the relatively minor end of the scale, they attract a starting point of between 18 months to two years and six months imprisonment.

[11] My assessment is that the starting point for the second burglary at [address 1 deleted] should be two years, three months. My reasons are this was your second burglary there, so you targeted it. The premeditation involved in the second burglary of [address 1 deleted] is an aggravating feature. Then the occupant was up in the lounge and you continued your burglary in the kitchen. There was a heightened risk of confrontation and violence. Although I have not received a victim impact statement, it is implicit that once the victim knew that she had been up and that you had continued a burglary with her up, there would be greater victim impact. In that burglary you took valuable items, including I think an iPhone and a PayWave card which you used. It follows that I assess this second burglary at [address 1 deleted] to be a serious case of domestic burglary with the aggravating features referred to in Arahanga v R.

[12] I next have to decide the uplift for your four other burglaries and the unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle. I have decided that that uplift should be two years. The first burglary at [address 1 deleted] was at night. The occupants were asleep and you went through the bedrooms. Again, there was a serious risk of confrontation and violence. Then there is the extent of the loss from the burglary at [address 2 deleted]. I have already referred to the list of items. Many valuable and expensive items taken there. In the burglary at [address 3 deleted], it was at 10.30 am on a Saturday morning. There was a high risk of someone being at home or coming home. There was also considerable loss at the [address 3 deleted] property, including power tools, a docking station and meat. In the burglary at Tauranga Direct Road was targeted of a rural shed, three motorbikes taken valued at $19,500, so another serious case of burglary. On its own, that would have a starting point in excess of two years. Then the unlawfully getting into a car, which was the least serious offence but involved you and an associate dumping a car.

[13] I then stand back and say, well on a totality basis is a combined starting point of four years, three months is appropriate and I conclude it is because there were

five burglaries, with the aggravating features I have referred to and the need for a deterrent sentence for this serious combination of domestic burglaries.

[14] I then assess sentence deductions. So from a sentence starting point of four years, three months or 51 months, I deduct 10 percent for your youth. I have not uplifted anything for your prior convictions. Given your offending history in

2016, the assessment that you are at high risk of re-offending, you are not in the case of a young person for whom the greatest discount for youth should be allowed to create space for rehabilitation. However, given your age, I think a 10 percent deduction for youth is appropriate. I then deduct 25 percent for guilty pleas. This results in an end sentence of 34 months or two years, 10 months imprisonment. It is concurrent on the burglaries and one year concurrent for the unlawfully getting into.

G C Hollister-Jones

District Court Judge