Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of New Zealand Decisions |
Last Updated: 18 February 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CRI-2013-004-13119 [2015] NZHC 79
THE QUEEN
v
MATTHEW ROSS RATU
Hearing:
|
5 February 2015
|
Appearances:
|
M R Walker for Crown
M J Dyhrberg QC for Defendant
|
Sentence:
|
5 February 2015
|
SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG
J
R v MATTHEW ROSS RATU [2015] NZHC 79 [5 February 2015]
[1] Mr Ratu, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to
charge of causing riotous damage under s 90 of the Crimes
Act 1961. The maximum
penalty for that offence is seven years imprisonment.
Background
[2] The charge to which you pleaded guilty was laid after you participated in a riot that occurred at the Spring Hill Corrections Facility on the weekend of 1 June
2013. This caused significant damage to one area of the facility that has
required about $5 million to repair.
[3] The riot occurred in Unit 16B, which is a medium security unit. It
contained two pods, each of which held 45 prisoners.
You were being held in one
of those pods.
[4] The riot began when prisoners were released from their pods for
morning exercise. At that point corrections officers noted
that some of them
appeared to be intoxicated. Disorderly behaviour then ensued, and some inmates
began fighting each other. When
prison officers moved to defuse the situation,
the matter quickly escalated. A large group of prisoners then began grabbing
items
of furniture and other items to use as weapons. Over a period of several
hours this group of prisoners then caused a very significant
amount of damage to
prison property by smashing it using implements, and by burning it in a fire
they started in the yard.
[5] The prisoners entered several areas of the prison, including the
pod dining room, activities room and a staff base. Inside
those areas, they
smashed items of furniture and equipment. They removed files and set fire to
them in the yard. You were a full
participant in those activities, but you have
not been charged with arson. I therefore proceed on the basis that the Crown
accepts
you were not one of the ringleaders who began the fires that caused so
much damage.
[6] The role that you played in events is described in a global summary of facts prepared in respect of charges faced by all of the participants in the riot. This says that you and two others used an object to hit the staff base door and windows. You and several others then collected items from around the compound including
furniture, appliances, clothing and toilet paper. You added these to fires
that had already been lit in the centre of the compound.
You and two others
then climbed in and out of the staff base window carrying TVs and keyboards and
throwing them out into the pod.
You also took files from the staff base. You
then entered an activity room armed with a pole and walked directly towards a
window.
You smashed the pole twice against the window. You and three others
then entered the dining room, where you used implements to
smash various
fixtures in that room. The summary records that you then supplied others with
weapons by breaking up chairs, tables
and benches. Finally, you walked to the
staff base steps and used a pole to smash the top of the door on several
occasions. You
and two others then walked around the compound randomly
smashing the glass on the grilles and doors to cells in the unit.
[7] This description of events marks you out as a full participant in
the riot, although not one at the upper end, because you
were not a ringleader
and you were not charged with arson. Nevertheless, you must be treated in the
same way as others who were
involved in like fashion.
Starting point
[8] In selecting a starting point for the sentence to be imposed on
you, I have the advantage of having presided over sentencing
hearings for
several of your co- offenders. I have also had the benefit of reading
sentencing decisions in the District Court where
other offenders have been dealt
with.
[9] It is clear from reading these decisions that offenders fall into
two groups. First, there is the group of ringleaders and
those who started the
fires. Judges who have sentenced those persons have selected a starting point
in the region of six years imprisonment.1
[10] Judges who have sentenced persons charged solely with causing riotous damage have tended to select starting points of around three years three months to
three years four months imprisonment.2 Both the
Crown and your counsel submit
1 R v Vakapuna DC Auckland CRI-2014-004-7234, 29 August 2014.
2 R v Ratu [2013] NZHC 3085; R v Lakau DC Auckland CRI-2013-004-013119, 13 March 2014;
R v Nahi DC Auckland CRI-2014-004-007234, 8 August 2014.
that an appropriate starting point is three years three months imprisonment,
and I
concur.
Aggravating factors
[11] Counsel differ, however, as to whether I should apply an uplift to
reflect the fact that you have previous convictions.
You have a large
number of previous convictions but as your counsel rightly points out, most of
these are for different types
of offending. I note, however, that you have
several previous convictions for wilful damage. These have been entered over
several
years. You are clearly a person who in the past has been prepared to
damage other people’s property, and you were obviously
prepared to become
involved in damaging the prison’s property on this occasion.
[12] I propose to add an uplift to reflect your previous convictions, but
a modest one. I will apply an uplift of three months
to reflect this
factor.
Mitigating factors
[13] It is now necessary to consider the extent to which I should reduce
the end starting point of three years six months imprisonment
to reflect
mitigating factors personal to you.
[14] I note that you are now 36 years of age. You told the probation
officer who prepared the report that you have been frustrated
by the court
process. By that I take you to mean that you are concerned at the length of
time the court process has taken to come
to an end. The only thing I have to
say about that is that it was open to you at any stage to seek a sentence
indication and to
enter a guilty plea as you have now done. As I understand the
situation, you indicated earlier that you proposed to take that course
of
action, but then resiled from it. You therefore largely have yourself to blame
for the fact that you are not being dealt with
until now.
[15] You say that your offending came about because you were effectively forced to join others in the riot. You say it was a question of joining the rioters or becoming a victim yourself. That is obviously an explanation for your offending, but does not
provide an excuse in respect of it. You had a clear choice to make. You
either joined the rioters, in which case you had to accept
responsibility for
what then happened, or you could have taken the course that many other prisoners
did, and remained in your cell.
In that event you would not be subject to any
additional sentence by the Court, but of course you would have run the risk of
retribution
by other prisoners. I acknowledge the difficulty of the situation
that you faced, but in the end you made your choice and must
now live with the
consequences. I cannot reduce the starting point I have selected to reflect
your view that you were effectively
forced into participating in the riot
because of retribution you would receive if you did not.
[16] I take the view that there are three areas in respect of which I can
provide you with a discount. The first is the fact
that you spent some six
months subject to restrictive bail conditions when you were granted EM bail in
December 2013. This period
of time apparently passed without incident and
without breach. I propose to provide you with a discount of three months to
reflect
that factor.
[17] As in the case of other offenders who have been charged as a result
of this incident, the Crown has accepted that you should
receive a discount of
five per cent, or two months, to reflect the fact that you have saved the State
the cost of a trial. In addition,
your counsel submits that you should
receive a further discount for remorse. The remorse is said to be
demonstrated
by comments you made to the probation officer who prepared the
pre-sentence report. You told the probation officer that you regretted
what
you had done, and you felt bad about what had happened to prison officers who
were caught up in the riot. You have expressed
similar sentiments in a letter
you have tendered to me today.
[18] I accept these comments as far as they go, Mr Ratu, but at the end of the day you are an offender who has appeared before the Court on many previous occasions. I do not consider, given your relatively late plea and late expression of remorse, that I can give you any additional discount for that. You are of course entitled to a discount for the guilty plea that you have entered albeit not at the earliest opportunity. Both counsel agree that this should be in the region of 20 per cent. I propose to reduce your sentence by eight months, which is slightly above 20 per
cent, to reflect your guilty plea. This produces an end sentence of two
years five months imprisonment.
Cumulative sentence: totality
[19] You are now serving another sentence of imprisonment as a result of
an incident that apparently occurred in May 2014 whilst
you were on EM bail.
The Crown submits, and your counsel accepts, that the present offending is
completely different to the offending
for which you are currently serving a
sentence of imprisonment. I therefore propose to impose a cumulative
sentence and
your counsel accepts that this is appropriate, because the
present offending is completely different to that which occurred in May
2014.
[20] Having indicated that I propose to impose a cumulative sentence, I
am bound to have regard to totality principles. You will
be subject to
automatic release on the sentence you are currently serving in or about April
this year after serving approximately
nine months imprisonment. I take the view
that no further adjustment is necessary to reflect totality principles in
relation to
the sentence I am about to impose.
Sentence
[21] On the charge of causing riotous damage to which you have entered a guilty plea, you are sentenced to two years five months imprisonment. You are to serve that sentence cumulatively on the existing sentence of imprisonment you are
currently serving.
Lang J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Counsel:
M Dyhrberg QC, Auckland
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2015/79.html