Legal Research
Cases
Anderson v R

Anderson v R

Case [2019] NZCA 294 9 July 2019

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA754/2018
[2019] NZCA 294

BETWEEN	KAIPARA ANDERSON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	10 June 2019
Court:	Brown, Whata and Moore JJ
Counsel:	N S Leader for Appellant M Harborow and R S Ching for Respondent
Judgment:	9 July 2019 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed.

BThe sentence of five years and 10 months’ imprisonment is quashed.
CA sentence of four years and seven months’ imprisonment is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Moore J)

Introduction

Kaipara Anderson pleaded guilty to charges arising out of his involvement in the robbery of The Warehouse at Dargaville. On 26 January 2018 he was sentenced by Judge de Ridder in the District Court at Whangārei to five years and 10 months’ imprisonment.[1]
[1]R v Anderson [2018] NZDC 1305.
Nine months later his co-defendant, Mr Cameron, was sentenced in the High Court at Whangārei to five years and two months’ imprisonment.[2]
[2]R v Cameron [2018] NZHC 2046.
Mr Anderson appeals his sentence on the basis that the starting point imposed was too high given the principle of parity.

Factual background

Late in the evening of 28 May 2017 Mr Cameron and Mr Anderson covered their faces with homemade balaclavas. They put on black clothing and shoes and wore latex gloves. Mr Cameron armed himself with a cut down .22 calibre rifle. It is not known whether that firearm was loaded.
The men drove to The Warehouse in Dargaville. There they broke into the rear perimeter area and entered the building through an insecure door. Inside the store were five staff; a man and four women. Undetected, Mr Cameron and Mr Anderson were able to watch the staff’s movements via the CCTV security system in the manager’s office. Mr Anderson armed himself with items he found in the office; a screwdriver and a pair of scissors.
At 11:00 pm, via the store’s public address system, the supervisor announced it was time for “smoko”. Shortly afterwards two of the victims entered the administration area where Mr Cameron and Mr Anderson were hiding. They were immediately confronted by the intruders. They were threatened that if they did anything stupid or did not comply with instructions they would be shot. Then, at gunpoint, they were directed into the toilet area. Their hands were bound with electrical cord. Then they were tied to each other.
Shortly after this the three other workers entered the administration area. They too were confronted by the men. At gunpoint they were escorted to the toilets. At Mr Cameron’s direction the supervisor identified herself. The other two victims were then bound with electrical cord in a similar fashion to the first two victims. Mr Anderson, armed with the screwdriver and scissors, stood guard over the four bound victims while Mr Cameron, armed with the gun, directed the supervisor to take him to the “money”. She led him to the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Anderson v R

Details

AGLC: Anderson v R [2019] NZCA 294
Case: [2019] NZCA 294
Decision Date: 9 July 2019 at 12.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kaipara Anderson was convicted of aggravated robbery and kidnapping offences and appealed his sentence. The appeal court found that the starting point for his sentence was set too high given the principle of parity with his co-defendant, Mr Cameron, who was sentenced to five years and two months' imprisonment. The appeal court found that there was a gross and irreconcilable discrepancy between the starting points, as Mr Cameron's involvement in the robbery was more serious than Mr Anderson's. The appeal court substituted a sentence of four years and seven months' imprisonment for Mr Anderson.

Orders