R v Umuroa & Ors - [2025] NZHC 850
Date of Judgment
09 April 2025
Decision
Summary
Sentencing of eight defendants on various charges associated with the death of Mitchell Te Kani. Five defendants sentenced for manslaughter with uplifts for associated violence charges; two defendants sentenced for violence only, excluding the manslaughter; and one defendant sentenced on two charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
On the night of the offending, Bodine Umuroa and Kiri Pini had gone to the address of a suburban family home and had a confrontation with the occupants. The occupants had no connection or involvement with any gang. Ms Pini had been in a previous relationship with one of the occupants. In response, they went back to a local gathering of Mongrel Mob members where Mr Umuroa sounded a "call to arms". Almost immediately, roughly 20 members of the Mongrel Mob left the gathering in five vehicles and returned to the address. Some carried weapons. Upon arriving at the address, the group advanced up the driveway of the address towards the dwellings. The male occupants had formed a skirmish line and had armed themselves in a bid to protect themselves and their property. The Mongrel Mob pack then began assaulting the occupants. During the attack, Mr Korau Te Kani was hit across the forehead with a weapon leaving him with a significant wound down to the bone and Mr Isaiah Hewitt had been seriously wounded with lacerations to his skull. These led to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm charges. There were additional, more minor, assault charges for violence to the other occupants. Tragically, Mitchell Te Kani was killed in the attack when he was struck with an object to the head.
The defendants found guilty of the manslaughter and/or the violence were found guilty as parties under s 66(2) of the Crimes Act. No principal offender was identified. Therefore, the sentencing for those charges proceeded on a collective liability basis without much adjustment for specific roles played. That was appropriate in this case because by virtue of the verdicts all of the defendants found guilty on those charges had signed up to the common unlawful purpose of entering the property to assault, including with the use of weapons, one or more occupants of the property. Deterrence and protection of the community was paramount for such gratuitous, wanton violence.
Starting points between 10 and 13 years' imprisonment were adopted for the manslaughter. A 10-year starting point was also adopted for the four violence charges combined. For those guilty of manslaughter, their starting points were uplifted by three years to reflect this. For those guilty of the violence alone, this became their starting point. Various other uplifts were given to other charges faced including by Mr Umuroa and Ms Pini arising from the confrontation earlier in the evening.
For Mr Shem Williams, a three-year starting point was adopted for the two perverting the course of justice charges he faced.
Appropriate reductions were then made for each individuals personal mitigating factors and sentence was passed.
For each defendant other than Mr Williams, a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent was imposed. In the circumstances, for such serious and shocking violence, that was necessary because the usual non-parole period was insufficient to meet the purposes specified in s 86 of the Sentencing Act.
On the night of the offending, Bodine Umuroa and Kiri Pini had gone to the address of a suburban family home and had a confrontation with the occupants. The occupants had no connection or involvement with any gang. Ms Pini had been in a previous relationship with one of the occupants. In response, they went back to a local gathering of Mongrel Mob members where Mr Umuroa sounded a "call to arms". Almost immediately, roughly 20 members of the Mongrel Mob left the gathering in five vehicles and returned to the address. Some carried weapons. Upon arriving at the address, the group advanced up the driveway of the address towards the dwellings. The male occupants had formed a skirmish line and had armed themselves in a bid to protect themselves and their property. The Mongrel Mob pack then began assaulting the occupants. During the attack, Mr Korau Te Kani was hit across the forehead with a weapon leaving him with a significant wound down to the bone and Mr Isaiah Hewitt had been seriously wounded with lacerations to his skull. These led to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm charges. There were additional, more minor, assault charges for violence to the other occupants. Tragically, Mitchell Te Kani was killed in the attack when he was struck with an object to the head.
The defendants found guilty of the manslaughter and/or the violence were found guilty as parties under s 66(2) of the Crimes Act. No principal offender was identified. Therefore, the sentencing for those charges proceeded on a collective liability basis without much adjustment for specific roles played. That was appropriate in this case because by virtue of the verdicts all of the defendants found guilty on those charges had signed up to the common unlawful purpose of entering the property to assault, including with the use of weapons, one or more occupants of the property. Deterrence and protection of the community was paramount for such gratuitous, wanton violence.
Starting points between 10 and 13 years' imprisonment were adopted for the manslaughter. A 10-year starting point was also adopted for the four violence charges combined. For those guilty of manslaughter, their starting points were uplifted by three years to reflect this. For those guilty of the violence alone, this became their starting point. Various other uplifts were given to other charges faced including by Mr Umuroa and Ms Pini arising from the confrontation earlier in the evening.
For Mr Shem Williams, a three-year starting point was adopted for the two perverting the course of justice charges he faced.
Appropriate reductions were then made for each individuals personal mitigating factors and sentence was passed.
For each defendant other than Mr Williams, a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent was imposed. In the circumstances, for such serious and shocking violence, that was necessary because the usual non-parole period was insufficient to meet the purposes specified in s 86 of the Sentencing Act.