DOCSLIB.ORG

IN the HIGH COURT of NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY CRI-2014-016-1983 [2016] NZHC 1538 the QUEEN V WARREN CHARLES TE HEI Hearing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IN the HIGH COURT of NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY CRI-2014-016-1983 [2016] NZHC 1538 the QUEEN V WARREN CHARLES TE HEI Hearing IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY CRI-2014-016-1983 [2016] NZHC 1538 THE QUEEN v WARREN CHARLES TE HEI Hearing: 7 July 2016 Appearances: C R Walker for Crown S Jefferson for Defendant Sentenced: 7 July 2016 SENTENCING REMARKS OF CLARK J Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Gisborne, for Crown Elvidge & Partners, Napier for Defendant R v WARREN CHARLES TE HEI [2016] NZHC 1538 [7 July 2016] Introduction [1] Mr Te Hei, you appear for sentence having been found guilty at trial on two charges: wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm,1 which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment, and assault with intent to injure.2 The maximum sentence for the charge of assault with intent to injure is three years imprisonment. Background [2] You were living in Wairoa in August 2014. You were a patched member of the Mongrel Mob gang although you had been previously a patched member of the Aotearoa Chapter. In the early evening of 8 August 2014 you were involved in a fight with the President of the Aotearoa Chapter and it seems you got the better of the President. You and your partner then immediately travelled to Gisborne in a vehicle driven by a cousin of your partner. You took with you in the vehicle a large machete. [3] You had the driver go to an address and when the vehicle was parked in the driveway you got out. It seems that you misinterpreted some drunken behaviour on the part of a female friend of the victim as abuse directed at you. [4] You retrieved the machete from the vehicle and attacked the victim in the driveway. You hit her a number of times in the face with either your fist or the handle of the machete and struck at her head with the machete blade. She held her left arm up to protect herself and received three wounds to her left hand and wrist. She also received bruising and swelling to the left side of her face. [5] The cousin intervened and took the machete from you and you then got back into the vehicle and left the scene. 1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1). 2 Crimes Act 1961, s 193. Sentencing Act 2002 [6] In a case involving violence of this severity the purposes of deterrence and denunciation are particularly important. The sentence must hold you responsible for your actions and deter you and others from similar behaviour in the future. [7] I must also have regard for the effect of the offending on the victim. The victim says that the entire event — the attack as well as the trial — has had a huge impact on her life. Physical effects remain years after the incident. Her eye has been damaged and her hand is visibly scarred. She finds herself reliving the incident all the time and she lives in fear that this is not over and that you may kill her or hurt her family. [8] There are two issues I have to decide today. First, the length of a finite sentence that would be imposed in the event I decide a finite sentence is appropriate. Second, whether I should, as the Crown has asked, sentence you to an indeterminate sentence of preventive detention. Finite sentence [9] First I need to determine what the finite sentence would be in the event a finite sentence is decided and the first step in that process is for me to identify a starting point. Starting point [10] For wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, a guideline exists in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v Taueki.3 In that case the Court of Appeal identified factors which are seen to make the conduct of overall criminality involved in grievous bodily harm more serious. [11] The Crown submits that the factors which are important in setting the starting point are that the violence was extreme and unprovoked. You used a machete. There was an element of premeditation in your returning to your car to get the machete, 3 R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA). and the attack was aimed at the head. The Crown points out that the victim was relatively vulnerable being smaller, and an unarmed female. [12] The Crown submits that there are no factors reducing the seriousness of the offending, and seeks a starting point of seven years imprisonment on the basis that this offending is best characterised as being in the middle of the second of the Taueki bands. [13] For you, Mr Jefferson has argued that this offending falls at the lower end of band two. The offending has, it was submitted, some of the characteristics of band one offending because it was impulsive, occurred in a public place, and involved a weapon. Mr Jefferson acknowledges a starting point of five years might be available. [14] I consider a starting point of six years appropriately reflects the seriousness of the offending. Uplift for previous offending [15] You have convictions for attempted murder in 1997, aggravated robbery in 1993 and 1991 and aggravated assault in 1992. The Crown seeks an uplift of nine to 12 months imprisonment. Mr Jefferson correctly accepts that an uplift may be appropriate to reflect your history of violent offending. [16] Although the convictions are for offences that occurred some time ago they were for serious violence and must be brought into account. The starting point is uplifted by nine months to mark these convictions. [17] There was no guilty plea and there are no mitigating factors. Indeed, you maintain your innocence. End finite sentence [18] Were I to impose a finite sentence I would impose a sentence of six years and 9 months imprisonment.4 [19] I now turn to whether the sentence should be a finite one or the indeterminate sentence of previous detention. Should a sentence of preventive detention be imposed? [20] A sentence of preventive detention is imposed to protect the community from those who pose a significant and ongoing risk to the safety of its members.5 It can only be imposed if the Court is satisfied that the offender is likely to commit another qualifying sexual or violent offence after being released from any finite term of imprisonment. [21] I have to take account of various factors in making this decision. The overall concern is whether you are likely to remain an ongoing risk to the safety of the community that can only be met by the imposing a sentence of preventive detention. Section 87(4)(a): Any pattern of serious offending disclose by the offender’s history [22] You have convictions for attempted murder in 1997, aggravated robbery in 1993 and 1991 and aggravated assault in 1992. [23] You are currently facing charges relating to an alleged assault on another prisoner while you were in prison. Mr Jefferson advises that you are defending this charge on the basis that you were acting in self defence, and that the Court should bear in mind that it occurred in a prison context where you had previously been subjected to violence yourself. In your letter you outlined the history of abuse and 4 Mr Jefferson accepted that a minimum period of imprisonment may be required to uphold the sentencing principles of deterrence, denunciation and accountability. The Crown argues for a minimum term of imprisonment of two-thirds of the starting point. Section 86 of the Sentencing Act provides for the Court to impose a minimum period of imprisonment in cases where the period otherwise effective under the Parole Act 2002 would be insufficient for the purposes of accountability, denunciation, deterrence and protection of the community. That minimum period must not exceed the lesser of two-thirds of the full sentence or 10 years. 5 Sentencing Act 2002, s 87. violence you have suffered in prison, at the hands of both other prisoners and prison authorities. [24] It seems clear that the gap in offending was due to your being in custody. A pattern is visible in your offending. The present offending and your outstanding charges, are a continuation of that pattern. Section 87(4)(b): The seriousness of the harm to the community caused by the offending [25] Serious physical harm has been caused to the victim of the present offending, and to the victims of past convictions. Section 87(4)(c): Information indicating a tendency to commit serious sexual or violent offences in the future [26] The Department of Corrections has made available the usual Provision of Advice to Courts report. I have also been provided, as required by law when considering a sentence of preventive detention, with two reports by health assessors, department psychologist Mr Morrison and forensic psychiatrist Dr Lehany. [27] The author of the Department’s report considers you have a very high risk of reoffending and a very high risk of doing harm to others. [28] Mr Morrison noted that you had spent two years and ten months following release from prison without offending and that this demonstrated a capacity to avoid offending. [29] The Department assessor also recorded that you were accepting of the need to address your tendency to use violence. [30] Mr Morrison recorded that you do not operate according to prosocial norms because you do not believe they are of use in the environment in which you live. I note that the reports of your life in Anaru Bay that I have read, in letters from people who know you from recent years, tell a different story of your commitment to building a life for you and your family following release from prison.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jono Rotman: Mongrel Mob Portraits City Gallery Wellington 14 March – 14 June 2015 Curated by Robert Leonard and Aaron Lister
    One of the functions of art is to transmit a reality that might be marginalised or missed in the cacophony of glib stimuli vying for our attention. Jono Rotman has carefully, respectfully insinuated himself into the culture of gangs, earning their trust. That trust is embodied in his Mongrel Mob Portraits. His subjects’ faces, tattoos, and insignia signify their alienation and marginalisation from mainstream society. The image of gangs portrayed to the general public is the incarnation of the white man’s worst nightmare, the emergence of a threatening monster from the ashes of the ‘noble savage’ portrayed by Lindauer and Goldie. These portraits challenge us to ask: what are the hidden and untold stories that underlie them? —Dr Ranginui Walker Dr Ranginui Walker (Whakatōhea) is an academic, author, historian, commentator, activist, and iwi consultant. He has been Professor and Head of Māori Studies at the University of Auckland, and, since his retirement, has been on the Waitangi Tribunal. In 2009, Dr Walker received the honour of the Distinguished Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit. Aaron Rogue 2009, C-type photograph, 1.5 x 1.2m. COVER Sean Wellington and Sons 2009, C-type photograph, 1.9 x 1.5m. Exchange: Jono Rotman’s Mongrel Mob Portraits Aaron Lister We are always looking and looking away at the same time. —W.G. Sebald, On the Natural History of Destruction (1998) THE EXPERIENCE OF the trial is itself photographic. Ushered into the public gallery of the courtroom with the warning that interest in the trial is likely to be significant following that controversial exhibition in Auckland, the conditions of viewing and my status as observer are continually reinforced.
    [Show full text]
  • Census of Prison Inmates and Home Detainees 2003
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Census of Prison Inmates and Home Detainees 2003 David Harpham Strategic Analysis Policy Development Group Department of Corrections November 2004 Published in November 2004 Department of Corrections Private Box 1206 Wellington New Zealand © Crown Copyright ISSN 1176-5100 Introduction A census of prison inmates has been carried out biennially in November since 1987. The Department of Justice administered the census until 1993, and the Ministry of Justice until 1997. The Department of Corrections took over this responsibility in 1999. The current census provides statistical data on inmates within the prison system as at 20 November 2003. The census contains data on offender age, ethnicity, sentence details, offending history, gang membership, education, income, children and marriage, iwi affiliation, programmes and activities, use of medication, and other topics. The purpose of the census exercise is to provide updated information concerning key characteristics of the New Zealand inmate population. Taken together with previous censuses, trends and patterns in this population may be identified. Information was collected from several sources. For the first time, the census used the Department of Corrections’ Integrated Offender Management System (IOMS) database as the primary data source. To obtain details not normally recorded in IOMS, a supplementary census questionnaire (comprising a small number of questions) was then sent to prison staff to complete in interview with inmates. Prison health services staff also collated numbers of inmates on medication, and programme personnel collated numbers of inmates on programmes. Inmate numbers tend to fluctuate in a predictable manner over the course of each week. The general pattern is mainly a function of prison releases occurring on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
    [Show full text]
  • AN EXPLORATION INTO WHANGANUI GANG IDENTITY By
    PATCHING UP THE DIFFERENCES: AN EXPLORATION INTO WHANGANUI GANG IDENTITY by Feona Jessica Sayles A thesis submitted to the faculty of Humanities and Cultural Studies, Victoria University of Wellington in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy January 2021 Copyright © Feona Jessica Sayles 2020 All Rights Reserved i ABSTRACT The District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Act 2009 (‘Gang Insignia Act 2009’) came into force in 2009 and prohibited the ‘display’ of ‘gang insignia’ within ‘specified areas’ of the Whanganui District. The purported aim of the legislation was to reduce intimidation of the public and confrontations between gangs. There was no requirement for intent on the part of the wearer of the insignia. This made the Whanganui gang insignia ban unique in terms of criminal law as it maintained that harm was inflicted due to group identity rather than specific conduct. This raises the question of how an identity can be constructed so that it is considered capable of causing criminal harm. To address this question, this research looked at the ways in which the media contributed to the construction of gang identity during the period of 2004 to 2013. This was achieved through (1) a content analysis of reports from three print newspapers and two online newspapers, (2) a content analysis of reader interactions with the reports, and (3) a textual analysis of two print newspapers. The research was guided by moral panic theory so looked for ways in which the events related to stages or elements of moral panic. The focus of the moral panic was also expanded so as to explore the overall context operating at the particular time.
    [Show full text]
  • [2017] NZCA 498 BETWEEN CLAYTON KERR Appellant AND
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA49/2017 [2017] NZCA 498 BETWEEN CLAYTON KERR Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent CA185/2017 BETWEEN WAYNE JONES Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 5 September 2017 Court: French, Williams and Woolford JJ Counsel: H B Leabourn for Appellant in CA49/2017 W T Nabney for Appellant in CA185/2017 S K Barr for Respondent Judgment: 2 November 2017 at 11.00 am JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The appeal by Mr Jones against conviction is dismissed. B The appeals by Mr Kerr and Mr Jones against sentence are allowed. C Mr Kerr’s sentence of 11 years and six months’ imprisonment is quashed. Concurrent sentences of nine years and two months’ imprisonment for KERR v R [2017] NZCA 498 [2 November 2017] aggravated robbery, three months’ imprisonment for robbery and six months’ imprisonment for receiving are imposed. The other aspects of the sentence are confirmed. D Mr Jones’ sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment is quashed. A sentence of eight years and six months’ imprisonment is substituted. ____________________________________________________________________ REASONS OF THE COURT (Given by Woolford J) Introduction [1] Following a jury trial before Judge Harding of four defendants in the Tauranga District Court between 3 and 10 October 2016, the first appellant, Clayton Kerr, was convicted of two charges of aggravated robbery,1 one charge of robbery,2 and one charge of receiving.3 The second appellant, Wayne Jones, was convicted of the same two charges of aggravated robbery.4 Judge Harding sentenced Mr Kerr to 11 years and six months’ imprisonment,5 while he sentenced Mr Jones to 10 years’ imprisonment.6 Mr Kerr now appeals against sentence only, while Mr Jones appeals against both conviction and sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • Polynesian Gangs in Auckland and Wellington*
    222 V.U.W. LAW REVIEW POLYNESIAN GANGS IN AUCKLAND AND WELLINGTON* I INTRODUCTION The concentrated attention on Polynesian gangs in this paper does not imply that these are the only gangs which exist nor that they are necessarily the most criminal or destructive or undesirable. The reason for special examination was the highlighting of their activities by the news media and the resultant public belief that these gangs were a menace to society. In addition, the recent study carried out by an Interdepartmental Committee1 discovered that 70% of the gangs in Auckland which the Committee had any knowledge of, were composed predominantly of Polynesians and the Committee felt that this ethnic homogeneity was one feature which could be the source of future trouble. Moreover it is a very recent feature for in 1959 A. E. Levett (“Gangs in Auckland” 1959) commented on the noticeable lack of Pacific Islanders in gangs and found only two or three Maori dominated gangs. It is pertinent to mention here that at present there are only three pieces of written work of any substance which deal with gangs in New Zealand. In the late 1950’s there was a rash of disturbances involving adolescent gangs, whose activities attracted a good deal of publicity and for a while, generated considerable public concern, and it was this which led to two pieces of research on gangs (both com­ pleted in 1959) being conducted within Government agencies. The first was a study by A. E. Levett, “Gangs in Auckland”, undertaken while he was a Boys’ Welfare Officer stationed in Auckland; the second was a report “Gang Misbehaviour in Wellington”, by J.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Power – Mongrel Mob Gang – Criminal Gangs – Maoris – Police 14 December 2009
    Country Advice New Zealand New Zealand – NZL35790 – Black Power – Mongrel Mob gang – Criminal gangs – Maoris – Police 14 December 2009 1. Please provide information about Black Power and the Mongrel Mob, in New Zealand and Australia. Where are they located and how many members do they have? Black Power (BP) and the Mongrel Mob (MM) in New Zealand: Black Power (BP) and the Mongrel Mob (MM) are the most prominent gangs in New Zealand. The larger of the two, Mongrel Mob, formed in the mid-1960s in Hastings; Black Power in Wellington around 1970. They are referred to as ethnically based gangs on account of their predominantly Maori and Polynesian membership. Members display distinctive dress, gestures, facial and bodily tattoos. Mongrel Mob members have the bulldog as their emblem, while Black Power associates commonly wear blue and salute one another with their emblem, a clenched fist. Those who wish to join either gang are often required to perform specific acts of initiation.1 Whilst belonging to a gang is not in itself an offence in New Zealand, MM and BP remain controversial principally for the nature and extent of their links to criminal activity and violence. Sources indicate that gang violence is rarely random or directed at the general public and nearly always involves rival gang members. Violence between MM and BP is commonly reported in the media, with much of the intra-gang conflict stemming from territorial disputes over drug distribution.2 The New Zealand Police state that the gangs are involved “in serious violence, selling and distributing drugs, possessing firearms and offensive weapons, and using intimidation and threatening tactics in pursuit of their criminal activities”.3 According to some gang researchers it would however be wrong to view gangs as primarily criminal organisations.
    [Show full text]
  • Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Act 2013
    Reprint as at 7 August 2020 Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Act 2013 Public Act 2013 No 56 Date of assent 12 August 2013 Commencement see section 2 Contents Page 1 Title 2 2 Commencement 2 Part 1 General provisions 3 Purpose 2 4 Interpretation 2 5 Regulations 5 Part 2 Offences and enforcement 6 Prohibition of display of gang insignia 5 7 Powers of arrest and seizure in relation to persons displaying gang 5 insignia 8 Power to stop vehicle to exercise powers of arrest or seizure 6 9 Filing charging document for offence 7 Note Changes authorised by subpart 2 of Part 2 of the Legislation Act 2012 have been made in this official reprint. Note 4 at the end of this reprint provides a list of the amendments incorporated. This Act is administered by the Ministry of Justice. 1 Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Reprinted as at s 1 Act 2013 7 August 2020 The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Act 2013. 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. Part 1 General provisions 3 Purpose The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the display of gang insignia on premises of departments of the public service, the Police, Crown entities, local author- ities, and schools. Section 3: amended, on 7 August 2020, by section 135 of the Public Service Act 2020 (2020 No 40). 4 Interpretation In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— Crown entity has the same meaning as in section
    [Show full text]
  • Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill
    Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill Member’s Bill As reported from the committee of the whole House 33—3 Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill Key to symbols used in reprinted bill As reported from the committee of the whole House text inserted Mark Mitchell Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill Member’s Bill Contents Page 1 Title 1 2 Commencement 2 Part 1 General provisions 3 Purpose 2 4 Interpretation 2 5 Regulations 5 Part 2 Offences and enforcement 6 Prohibition of display of gang insignia 5 7 Powers of arrest and seizure in relation to persons 5 displaying gang insignia 8 Power to stop vehicle to exercise powers of arrest or 6 seizure 9 Filing charging document for offence 7 The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Act 2012. 33—3 1 Prohibition of Gang Insignia in cl 2 Government Premises Bill 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. Part 1 General provisions 5 3 Purpose The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the display of gang in- signia on premises of departments of the Public Service, the Police, Crown entities, local authorities, and schools. 4 Interpretation 10 In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— Crown entity has the same meaning as in section 7 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 department means any department specified in Schedule 1 of the State Sector Act 1988 15 district health board means a district health
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis, Master of Social Sciences
    http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/ Research Commons at the University of Waikato Copyright Statement: The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). The thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: Any use you make of these documents or images must be for research or private study purposes only, and you may not make them available to any other person. Authors control the copyright of their thesis. You will recognise the author’s right to be identified as the author of the thesis, and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate. You will obtain the author’s permission before publishing any material from the thesis. Prototypical gang recruits in New Zealand prisons A thesis Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master’s of Social Sciences in Psychology at The University of Waikato by Daniel Lett 2021 ii Abstract Gangs have long been associated with antisocial behaviour and crime. To maintain themselves, gangs require a steady flow of new recruits. A better understanding of who is being recruited into gangs is the first step in preventing recruitment and lowering the impact of gangs on society. We asked what the prototypical gang recruit in New Zealand prisons is? To answer this, we needed to establish which factors are most likely to make someone more prototypical. Using these factors as our focus, we completed a series of difference of proportion analyses on archival data acquired through Te Ara Poutama.
    [Show full text]
  • Napier Social Monitor 2012
    Napier Social Monitor 2012 NAPIER SOCIAL MONITOR 2012 PREPARED FOR NAPIER CITY COUNCIL BY APR CONSULTANTS JULY 2012 APR Consultants Ltd i Napier Social Monitor 2012 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of the Napier Social Monitor Survey undertaken during May 2012. A total of 400 residents were surveyed to identify their level of satisfaction with living in Napier. The results were weighted against age and ethnicity to account for sampling differences and ensure the results were representative of the Napier population. Items measured relate to housing, health, safety, employment, education and training, vehicle and Internet access, nature of the community and community relationships. The key findings are summarised in this section and detailed in the report that follows. Housing • The majority of respondents (96.2%) were either very satisfied or fairly satisfied with their current housing in Napier. • Four-fifths (80.1%) of respondents indicated that they owned their own home, while one-fifth (19.4%) rented. Health • A total of 90.0% of respondents rated their personal health as excellent, very good or good while 6.6% rated their health as poor and 2.4% as extremely poor. • Four-fifths (81.7%) of respondents identified that they (or a person in their care) had visited a doctor, hospital or other medical/health service in the last six months. • Most (89.2%) of those seeking health care from a doctor or Medical Health Service reported no problems with this service, while 10.2% reported some problems. • Over three-quarters (78.9%) of those seeking health care at Hawke’s Bay Hospital reported no problems with this service, while 18.1% reported some problems.
    [Show full text]
  • National Gangs A3
    Adult gang members and their children's contact with Ministry 1,2,3 of Social Development service lines: National Profile Auckland City 4% Gangs profile Counties Manukau 11% Northland 8% An estimated total of 3,960 adult gang members were known to Police as at July 2014 Waitemata 4% Bay of Plenty 19% All gang members were male, most were Māori and the average age was around 40 years Gang members were mostly concentrated in the North Island Waikato 7% Ethnicity Age Gang Affiliation Police District Eastern 17% 31% Central 9% 29% 38% Mongrel Mob 29% Black Power Wellington 11% 20% 17% Tasman 2% 5% Tribesmen MC 2% 1% 4% King Cobras Canterbury 6% 8% Pacific peoples <20 years20-29 years30-39 years40-49 years50-59 years60+ years 4% Head Hunters MC 3% Filthy Few MC 14% European 77% Māori Southern 2% 14% Other 3% Nomads Work & Income (W&I) involvement Child, Youth & Family (CYF) involvement 92% (3,627) of gang members have received a main benefit at some point in their life Children of gang members The average duration of receipt of a main benefit was 8.9 years (not necessarily continuously) 1,925 gang members had a total of 5,890 Substantiated findings of abuse children known to CYF or neglect by gang members 60% (3,516) of these children had findings of abuse or neglect allegedly by their parents, or in 30% Total time on benefit Types of main benefit received 27% (1,056) of the gang members were a minority of cases some other person recorded by CYF as alleged perpetrators of 24% Mothers were just as likely to be the alleged 54% Job Seeker abuse or neglect
    [Show full text]
  • Gangs and Guns: Is a Blanket Firearms Ban on Gangs Justified?
    Gangs and Guns: Is a Blanket Firearms Ban on Gangs Justified? Anne Lim A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws (with Honours) at the University of Otago --- Te Whare Wānanga o Otāgo. 6 October 2017. Acknowledgements A big thank you to: My supervisor, Professor Margaret Briggs, for your guidance with what seemed like an insurmountable task. Your swift and patient e-mail replies to my panicked ramblings and willingness to help in every way possible have made this dissertation-writing experience an extremely enjoyable one. Mum and Dad, for supporting my endeavours and reading drafts of this dissertation at 5 am from the other side of the world; my siblings Li Shawn and Eugene, for catering to my whims and demands for food, shelter, and pleasantries during the university breaks. The LAWS101 tutors, for the camaraderie and procrastination chit-chat. Working with you all has been an absolute pleasure. Amy Corkery, for your excellent proofreading skills and unwavering support. Your kind words and sunny disposition never fail to make me smile. Alice Tiffany, Jared Papps, Kalyani Dixit, and Veronica MacKenzie, for being by my side as we tackled the Law school giant and indulged in a similar kind of macabre humour together. Thank you for the late-night food trips and the even later conversations in the wee hours of the morning. Owen Wilkinson, Kade Cory-Wright, and Taotao Li, for providing the (occasional) token of wisdom and sage words of advice during difficult times. Finally, to Elliot Brownlee, Matthew Brunton, Roshana Ching, Finn Robinson, and Jonny Iremonger, for the laugh-out-loud moments that I can forever appreciate and roll my eyes at.
    [Show full text]