Urewera sentences upheld

October 30th, 2012 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the Urewera four’s appeal against their convictions and sentences.

In today’s decision, Justices Mark O’Regan, Ellen France and Terence Arnold have agreed with High Court Justice Rodney Hansen’s earlier ruling and labelled it a “generous one”.

Lawyers for Urs Signer, Emily Bailey, veteran activist Tame Iti and Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara took the appeal in August, three months after Justice Hansen’s ruling.

At the time, Signer and Bailey received a sentence of nine months’ home detention on firearms possession charges while Iti and Kemara were each sentenced to two and a half years in prison on the same charges.

In today’s ruling Justices O’Regan, France and Arnold agreed with Justice Hansen’s reasoning in the following passage:

“The question of whether the four of you participated in a criminal group, which had as its objective the commission of serious crimes of violence, is quite distinct from the issue of why you acquired the firearms and deployed them at the camps.

“Your intention in that latter sense is highly relevant to an assessment of your culpability and there is sufficient evidence on that issue to satisfy me to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.”

They also suggested Justice Hansen’s approach had been “generous”.

“Accordingly, we consider it was open to the judge to reach the factual findings he did. Once that point is accepted, there can be no real argument that the sentences imposed were within range.

“Indeed, there is force in the Crown submission that in giving credit for the appellants’ altruistic motivation, the approach taken was generous.”

This is a very significant decision from the Court of Appeal. Many misguided idiots complained that the Court had got the sentences wrong, and had ignored the jury verdict. The Court of Appeal has rubbished this claim, and in fact said if anything the trial judge was too generous with his sentencing.

If Iti and co had not been so incompetent, they could have been dangerous. We do not want armed militias in NZ, or even idiots pretending to be one using firearms illegally.

The confirmed sentences should provide reasonable deterrent to others in the future.

Tags: Tame Iti, Urewera

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 30th, 2012 at 7:00 am and is filed under NZ Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

28 Responses to “Urewera sentences upheld”

Mark (1,122) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 7:18 am
It is good to see common sense prevailing
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
ross69 (2,397) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 7:27 am
“Iti’s lawyer, Russell Fairbrother, said he was sure that the appeal would be taken to the Supreme Court…’[t]he next avenue is the Supreme Court and there’s a throwaway line in the judgement from the Court of Appeal saying that some of the matters will have to be argued in the Supreme Court, so obviously they expect it to go there as well,’ Mr Fairbrother told Radio New Zealand.”

I guess if the case goes to the SC and the CA’s judgment is overturned, the SC judges will be just a bunch of misguided idiots. Have you ever thought of becoming a lawyer?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Lee C (4,499) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 7:39 am
So they were a criminal group bent on violence, but with ‘altruistic’ motives.

And on this basis, the sentencing for having firearms was set accordingly.

What might a meth manufacturer would get for ‘non-altruistic’ firearm possession?

I only ask for information.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Griff (4,920) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 7:41 am
Face it lefty Ross the filthy scum Iti and his band of terrorists got of lightly.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Keeping Stock (8,810) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:10 am
Here’s hoping that Urs Signer is deported upon the expiry of his sentence. Immigration is a privilege, and I cannot think of a worse abuse of that privilege than plotting against the government that has given you a home.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
bhudson (3,509) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:22 am
KS,

[Assuming any truth to certain allegations...] His sentence is too short for even a donation to the Labour Party to help him
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Keeping Stock (8,810) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:31 am
And let’s not forget that Emily Bailey, Signer’s “partner” is the sister of Ira Bailey who just happened to have an hour to spare from his job as an IT guru, just happened to call by a WINZ office with a kiosk, just happened to discover a security vulnerability, just happened to have a USB stick to download screenshots to, and just happened to release the story to a sympathetic blogger.

Oh, and to add to all those coincidences, Ira Bailey was also arrested in the Urewera raids, but by a stroke of good fortune, he got off on a technicality. Of course, he bears no malice towards the State…
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
KH (680) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:35 am
Deport Signer.
He is a dreaming wannabe perhaps. But when the dreaming gets up to training with guns, it’s getting too close to hurting real people, or taking their lives.
Get this dangerous creep as far from our shores as possible.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Keeping Stock (8,810) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:46 am
I’m with KH. And even though Signer was sentenced to Home Detention, it was for an offence that could have seen him imprisoned:

D2.15.40 Deportation liability of residence class visa holder convicted of criminal offence

See also Immigration Act 2009 s 161

A residence class visa holder is liable for deportation if they are convicted, in New Zealand or elsewhere:

of an offence for which the court has the power to impose imprisonment for a term of 3 months or more if the offence was committed at any time:
when the person was unlawfully in New Zealand; or
when the person held a temporary entry class visa; or
not later than 2 years after the person first held a residence class visa; or
of an offence for which the court has the power to impose imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more, if the offence was committed not later than 5 years after the person first held a residence class visa; or
of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 5 years or more (or for an indeterminate period capable of running for 5 years or more), if the offence was committed not later than 10 years after the person first held a residence class visa.
D2.15.40(c) applies:
whether the sentence is of immediate effect or is deferred or is suspended in whole or in part;
if a person has been convicted of 2 or more offences on the same occasion or in the same proceedings, and any sentences of imprisonment imposed in respect of those offences are cumulative, as if the person had been convicted of a single offence and sentenced for that offence to the total of the cumulative sentences; or
if a person has been convicted of 2 or more offences, and a single sentence has been imposed in respect of those offences, as if that sentence had been imposed in respect of a conviction for a single offence.

http://www.immigration.govt.nz/opsmanual/45056.htm

The fact that Iti and Kemara got two-and-a-half years for the same charges that Signer and Bailey got home d. indicates that the Court had the power to impose imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
tvb (3,314) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:57 am
I considered the sentences were at the low end of the scale given the strong comments the Learned Judge made in his ruling finding them guilty.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Manolo (9,946) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 9:14 am
Signer is an undesirable found guilty by the courts. He should be deported. Out with the crim.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
anonymouse (495) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 9:46 am
This is a very significant decision from the Court of Appeal.

You might say that, but after reading para 112 of the decision, I am firmly convinced that they simply rubber stamped the high court decision, full well knowing that it was likely to go to the supreme court, in fact some might say that they have enabled an appeal to the supreme court with this comment

“In any event, like the High Court, we are bound by the decision of the Supreme Court that the evidence was admissible. Nor can we deal with a submission based on the submissions made in the Supreme Court. If the appellants want to pursue these issues, they will now have to do so in that Court.”
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Bob R (1,040) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 10:02 am
Keep in mind what these guys were planning:

“As incredible as it may seem, the Police affidavit showed their strategy was to establish small squads capable of committing such heinous acts of violence that the public would think Al Qaeda was responsible. Comments show that targets included US President George Bush, who was reported to be considering visiting New Zealand after APEC in Australia in late 2007: “Why you want to go and focus on Mr Bush for?… I’ll wanna go back and get my .308 and shoot the c… – shoot him in the f…… head.”

John Key was also considered a target: “Just go to Parliament… Get someone to assassinate the Prime Minister, the new one, next year’s one. Just been in office for five days, bang… Yeah John Key… Just drop a bomb… Just wait ’til he visits somewhere and just blow them. They won’t even find you.”

Another target was ‘Pakeha’. They talked about “it being a good thing to kill Pakeha to get them used to killing” and “the day coming when Pakeha will be kicked off their farms.”

They not only planned to use firearms, but rocket launchers, Molotov cocktails and napalm as well. Their strategy was to be so violent and brutal it would divide the country:”What do you reckon the best strategy is? … revolution that goes on across a specific area, you know set up a strategic bombing campaign… Tuhoe wouldn’t have popular support for a bombing campaign in New Zealand as a whole… It would in Tuhoe though… What about if we did a bombing campaign that blew up Waihopai spy base, power dams, gas facilities, TV stations and radios… It’s a strategy that gonna be f….. urban warfare… Strategy will divide, will divide Aotearoa… extreme violence, and extreme f…… actions too.”

http://www.nzcpr.com/weekly329.htm
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
alex Masterley (1,146) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 10:04 am
I can’t see the SC suddenly deciding that evidence it said was admissable is now inadmissable.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Elaycee (3,512) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 10:11 am
DPF:

Many misguided idiots complained that the Court had got the sentences wrong, and had ignored the jury verdict. The Court of Appeal has rubbished this claim, and in fact said if anything the trial judge was too generous with his sentencing.

Indeed. But that won’t stop the morons who bleated and moaned about the original sentences, from trying to paint these criminals as something other than what they really are: pathetic, wannabe terrorists.

At least they are off our streets for a while. Good riddance.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
RF (724) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 10:20 am
Bob R.. 10.02am. In a nut shell. Thats why we need to keep these left leaning scum out of our society as they are simply bloody dangerous
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Reid (13,566) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 11:58 am
Thats why we need to keep these left leaning scum out of our society as they are simply bloody dangerous

It’s leftism that’s the criminal here. These people are just victims of rampant leftism.

But seriously if our laws are so deficient as to be unable to prosecute then change the damn law, quickly. I mean if we can’t even prosecute clear and present terrorism, what the heck can we prosecute?

Even though the tape evidence is not admissible, this doesn’t mean it’s not evidence.

It’s incredible to me that even though these are the facts, the media insists on promoting the “they’re innocents unfairly prosecuted” meme, when it’s clearly false. It actually makes me angry because the media can’t even get it through their skulls that their idiotic Quixotic charge is in fact social destructive, for it spreads a falsehood in which fools and weak-minded idiots will take as truth, and most of those people are young males with chips on their shoulders. So why give them an excuse to make it bigger and burn it into their memories, when it’s completely false in the first place: this wasn’t an innocent prank.

It’s happened before. The Zaoui case was another example where the media get it completely wrong and to this day lots of fools and idiots labour under a misconception that we weren’t being humane enough as a country.

But it makes me angry they just keep doing it.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
scrubone (2,321) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
1. Nothing happened
2. Well, something happened but it was nothing really
3. Well, it wasn’t nothing but there’s no evidence of wrongdoing
4. Well, there is evidence but it isn’t admissible
5. Well, it’s admissible but it doesn’t prove criminal behaviour
6. Well, it proves criminal behaviour, but it’s not very *serious* criminal behaviour
7. Well, the judge said it was serious criminal behaviour, but the appeal court will sort that out
8. Well, the appeal court didn’t agree with us but just you wait until the supreme court hears this!!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
backster (1,782) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
It will be interesting to see if Judge Ellen France is just as resolute if the Crown should appeal the decision by her husband to dismiss the cases against 21 motorcycle gang members without hearing the facts in order to ‘teach the Police a leeson.”
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Longknives (2,501) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Scrubone- Brilliantly put!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Yoza (387) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Merchant banker uses car as a weapon causing grievous bodily harm then flees the scene of the crime gets a slap on the wrist.

Left wing dissidents harmlessly playing with guns miles from anywhere, where no-one gets hurt, get prison sentences.

The message couldn’t be clearer. It appears that a prerequisite for being a judge in New Zealand is the ability to internalise a right wing dogma founded on an ideal of racial superiority.

Sickening.

This is not justice, it is an abuse of power and privilege in pursuit of furthering the tawdry agenda of the far right.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Longknives (2,501) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Yoza-
If you don’t mind me asking-but have you ever visited planet fucking Earth???

Random quote– “What about if we did a bombing campaign that blew up Waihopai spy base, power dams, gas facilities, TV stations and radios… It’s a strategy that gonna be f….. urban warfare… Strategy will divide, will divide Aotearoa… extreme violence, and extreme f…… actions too.””
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Yoza (387) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Its called hot air, Longknives. If that was what this case was founded on they would have been tried under the terrorism legislation.

They were found guilty on the feeble ‘misuse of fire arms act’.

The original judges sentence reflects his contempt for the jury refusing to find the four guilty of anything else, the subsequent judgement of the appeal court appears to be an act of deference to a white establishment determined to stamp out dissenting voices.

Given the extraordinarily racist, far right wing extreme to which Kiwiblog panders I do not expect my view on this to be accepted.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Kea (4,563) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Yaza, last time we chatted you were acting as chief apologist and spin doctor for Pol Pot.

Now I hear you defending a group that wanted to incite civil war in NZ, with random terrorist acts against civilians.

(They did not get convicted of that due to legal technicalities.)

I wonder if you would be so quick to defend them if it were your family that got hit by the napalm they were making. I wonder if the media people would come out in support, if they saw their nice little white middle class kid blown in to steaming smoking lumps of meat, or writhing around screaming as the home made napalm burnt them to the bone?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
RF (724) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Yaza.. The container containing your shipment of tin foil hats has arrived. Try and make them last longer this time. Are you sure that you live in the right country ?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Yoza (387) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
“Yaza, last time we chatted you were acting as chief apologist and spin doctor for Pol Pot.”

Bullshit, find a quote anywhere in that thread where I condoned the activities of Pol Pot.

This lot were too inept to carry out any kind of terrorist act or operate in anyway resembling a clandestine manner. The fact they were shooting their mouths off over phone lines should have tipped off the nazi clowns monitoring them to how hopeless they were.

The rest of your post is utter nonsense.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mikenmild (6,603) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Locked up for their own good as being too stupid to be anywhere else, then?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Luc Hansen (4,573) Says:
October 30th, 2012 at 10:15 pm
This outcome is a good example of how we have developed as human beings since our colonial days.

I mean, at least we didn’t hang them on trumped up charges, we just took them off the welfare rolls for a while and gave them time out.

Progress. Gotta love it.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Kiwiblog

Urewera sentences upheld

Share this:

Related posts:

28 Responses to “Urewera sentences upheld”

Leave a Reply