R v Takamore

[2020] NZHC 574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2018-035-1361

[2020] NZHC 574

THE QUEEN

v

AARON TAKAMORE

Hearing:

19 March 2020

Counsel:

G J Burston for Crown

J C Hannam for Defendant (via AVL)
S Nicholls for Community Corrections (via AVL)

Judgment:

19 March 2020

ORAL JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

(APPLICATION TO CANCEL SENTENCE OF HOME DETENTION AND RE-SENTENCE)

[1]                 Mr Takamore appeared for sentence on 13 September 2019. Even at that time there had been a great deal of thought put into sentencing options for him.

[2]                 The Crown supported a sentence in the community, if suitable arrangements could be made, and it took some time for those suitable arrangements to be put in place.

[3]                 Mr Takamore was sentenced to 12 months’ home detention with special conditions. The home detention address became unsuitable and a change of address to his mother’s address was approved without the matter being referred back to me. I mean no disrespect to Mr  Takamore’s mother, but it is perhaps unsurprising that that

R v TAKAMORE [2020] NZHC 574 [19 March 2020]

arrangement was not successful. Mr Takamore left the address without Corrections’ consent.

[4]                 Mr Takamore has now been in custody since 19 January for having left the address without consent. Corrections has laid an application to cancel the sentence and resentence him to imprisonment. We have had a number of calls of this matter since the date of that application. The reason for that is because Mr Hannam as counsel, Mr Burston for the Crown, and indeed I remain of the review that, if possible, it is in not only Mr Takamore’s interest, but in the wider interests of society that he be sentenced to a community-based sentence.

[5]                 It has taken some time to get to the position today where I can make a final decision. I want to express my gratitude to Ms X for appearing in Court today and talking to me candidly about her situation. It was with Ms X that Mr Takamore originally lived on home detention. She provided me a little bit more background as to why that came to an end. In short, it involved not only difficulties she was having at that time with her then partner, but also issues concerning her children coming to the address. Ms X’s children are currently in the care of her mother but they do visit her address.

[6]                 Ms X has assured me that her mother is supportive of Mr Takamore being at the address. He will have his own bedroom and she, Ms X, is supportive of him. She emphasises they have a good relationship. They are supportive of one another. She has her own challenges to deal with and she spoke candidly about those.

[7]                 There have been other addresses considered, for example, a Bay of Plenty address. Mr Takamore did not want those inquiries pursued because he was of the view that living in that environment would not be in his long-term best interests, in particular, in his efforts to distance himself from gang associations.

[8]                 I  am  satisfied,  given  everything  I  have  heard,  that   it   is  appropriate  Mr Takamore return to Ms X’s address. The issues raised in the memorandum from Corrections about any concerns with the children can only be dealt with once he is at the address in any event. As I understand it, it will involve a hui for everyone to

discuss how things should be managed at the address when the children are there.  Ms X tells me, however, that the children find him a supportive person to have in the house.

[9]                 There is a breach of community work.  I understand from Mr Hannam and  Mr Takamore that he is recommitted to doing that community work. I assume the breach has been laid in the District Court. It is not for me to tell that Judge what to do, but I express my hope that in all the circumstances perhaps a conviction and discharge would be the appropriate result. And I say that because Mr Takamore has got quite a journey in front him in terms of rehabilitation and he needs to focus on that.

[10]              For all those reasons, I dismiss the application to cancel and re-sentence. The effect of that is that Mr Takamore’s sentence of home detention which was imposed on 13 September 2019 continues to run. The address is changed back to the original address. There is a change to the special conditions. Instead of the special condition to attend an assessment with a Departmental Psychologist, Mr Takamore is instead to attend an assessment for a medium intensity rehabilitation programme. He is then to attend and complete an appropriate medium intensity rehabilitation programme as recommended by the assessor to the satisfaction of the Probation officer and programme provider.

[11]              In addition, it is hoped that Mr Takamore can re-engage with Tui Ora so that a daytime programme of activities can be put in place. He has suggested to the Court a weekly programme which includes going to the gym and the Salvation Army Men’s Group. Those are matters to be addressed by his Probation officer.

1. I want to stress, however, that I expect everybody to use their best efforts to:

(a)ensure that Mr Takamore attends rehabilitation and completes his community work; and

(b)that he is given the proper opportunity and the best support to do so.

[13]              A final matter is judicial monitoring. I would like a report in three months as to Mr Takamore’s progress. Whether or not I will want to see him depends upon what is is in that report.

[14]My thanks to everyone for their contribution today.

Thomas J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor’s Office, Wellington for Crown Hannam and Co, New Plymouth for Defendant

S Nicholls, Community Corrections, New Plymouth