Accused determined to enter guilty pleas

A109 Light Utility Helicopter flight with mayor Gisborne City from the air in November 2023.

“I know exactly what I’ve done, I know the evidence against me . . . ” and, “I’ve got no chance of getting away with this.”

That’s what a man accused of endangering several people’s lives by intentionally damaging their vehicles and interfering with a state highway, said when he made a preliminary appearance in Gisborne District Court this week.

Jade Smith, 34, who livestreamed in from a prison remand unit, insisted he wanted to plead guilty to all 10 charges against him, despite his lawyer’s advice against it.

Most of the charges relate to his actions on March 26, this year. Eight charges allege he intentionally damaged specific people’s vehicles having ought to have known danger to life was likely to ensue; another charge alleges he intentionally caused danger to that group of people by interfering with a transport facility — State Highway 2, at Wairoa.

He was charged with a further offence three days later, when he allegedly tried to obstruct a police officer by assaulting him.

Counsel Alistair Clarke told the court he had explained to Smith he did not need to plead to the charges at this early stage. Smith had not yet had a chance to look at the disclosed evidence against him and Mr Clarke had not yet spoken with police or the Crown as to any possible alternative charges.

If Smith still insisted on entering pleas, it was against his advice and the charges would need to be put by the court, Mr Clarke said.

Judge Warren Cathcart reminded Smith the charges were serious. Interfering with the highway carried a 14-year maximum sentence and the offences involving damage to the vehicles carried 10-year maximum penalties.

“It would be utter foolishness” for Smith to plead guilty today without looking at the disclosure with his lawyer, the judge told him. He urged Smith to take up the opportunity to delay his decision for a couple of weeks so he and Mr Clarke could have a “sensible discussion”.

But Smith said he knew exactly what he’d done, that there was no chance of having the charges reduced, and that he had no chance of getting away with this.

He didn’t want to risk not getting his full 25 percent guilty plea discount.

The judge assured Smith all defendants were entitled to look at their disclosure before entering pleas.  Waiting to do so wouldn’t see him lose out on full discount.

But Smith remained insistent he wanted to plead.

As the judge put each of the charges to him, Smith gave the same response to all of them –— that he was “guilty, with remorse”.

Sentencing was scheduled as a Crown fixture mid-year and Smith was further remanded in custody ahead of it.

The court agreed to direct a pre-sentence report that traversed the suitability of electronically-monitored sentence options, and a psychologist’s report. Restorative justice was also directed.

Mr Clarke said he would arrange cultural and alcohol and drug reports.

Smith asked if he could waive that process but the judge said no. The court needed to hear from the victims.

Smith also wanted to know if he would have the chance to explain his actions. The judge assured him he would — both to the probation officer writing the pre-sentence report and to the judge.

A summary of facts will be traversed at sentencing.