Legal Research
Cases
Aramoana v R

Aramoana v R

Case [2021] NZCA 558 22 October 2021

Sentencing

Unconscionable Conduct

Rehabilitation

Cultural Background

Personal Circumstances

Impaired Choice

Diminished Moral Culpability

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA143/2019
[2021] NZCA 558

BETWEEN	ERU NANABOY ARAMOANA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	28 September 2021
Court:	Cooper, Venning and Palmer JJ
Counsel:	K H Maxwell for Appellant R D Butler and A C Cameron for Respondent
Judgment:	22 October 2021 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed.
BThe sentence of five years and six months’ imprisonment is quashed.
C A sentence of four years and 11 months’ imprisonment is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Palmer J)

Offending and sentence

On 9 November 2017, Mr Eru Aramoana now aged 41, went to an address in South Auckland with a co-offender, intending to purchase methamphetamine. Led by the co-offender, they beat the victim severely, leaving him with blurry vision, a fractured shoulder, migraines, memory loss and trauma from his head being kicked and punched numerous times. They robbed him of $300 cash, a cellphone, a USB device, a travel bag and keys. Mr Aramoana denied participating in any violence. Nevertheless, after a trial by jury, on 16 November 2018 he was convicted of aggravated robbery.
The Department of Corrections provided a pre-sentence report about Mr Aramoana. It reported Mr Aramoana saying that what he did was normal behaviour in South Auckland, reflecting the way he was raised and his association with gang life. Mr Aramoana said he was under the influence of drugs at the time of the offending. He stated his willingness to attend any programmes available to address his drug and alcohol abuse. The report said Mr Aramoana had previously expressed his wish to change his life and that he has a supportive partner and children. However, it also observed that he seems ill-equipped to implement a structured lifestyle which would support that. It assessed his risk of harm and of reoffending as high. Mr Aramoana has an extensive criminal history.
On 17 January 2019, Judge McGuire sentenced Mr Aramoana.[1] Mr Aramoana addressed the Judge about his past. After traversing the offending, the Judge outlined Mr Aramoana’s personal circumstances including institutionalisation by social welfare as a youth and having children of his own, and the information in the pre-sentence report by Corrections. The Judge told him not to blame his upbringing for his own actions and to take responsibility for his life. The Judge adopted a starting point of six years’ imprisonment for the offending.[2] He accepted that Mr Aramoana’s need to access drugs drove his previous burglary convictions and did not take into account a conviction for aggravated assault and burglary which was committed after the index offending. For Mr Aramoana’s prior offending, the Judge uplifted the sentence by six months. He made an allowance for initial steps taken by Mr Aramoana on remand to address his drug issue and a five per cent discount for allowing agreed facts to be presented to the jury. That resulted in a discount of one year overall and an…

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 Aramoana v R

Details

AGLC: Aramoana v R [2021] NZCA 558
Case: [2021] NZCA 558
Decision Date: 22 October 2021 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Eru Nanaboy Aramoana appealed against the sentence imposed on him by the District Court for aggravated robbery. The Crown Law Office represented the respondent, the Queen. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard the appeal on 28 September 2021, and delivered its judgment on 22 October 2021.

The legal issues that the Court had to decide were whether the Judge had erred in not considering Mr Aramoana's personal background and cultural factors in imposing the sentence, and if so, whether a different sentence should be imposed. The Court noted that section 8(i) of the Sentencing Act 2002 required a court to take into account the offender's personal, family, whanau, community, and cultural background in imposing a sentence. The Court also noted that section 27 of the Act provided that an offender may request the court to hear any persons they call to speak about their background and how it may have related to the offending. The Court referred to the relevant case law and observed that the assessment of the linkage between personal background and offending was a fact-specific exercise.

The Court found that the Judge had not considered Mr Aramoana's background and personal circumstances in imposing the sentence, despite the detailed and thorough report under section 27 that was adduced as evidence in this appeal. The Court considered that Mr Aramoana's upbringing, disconnection from his iwi, whānau dysfunction, limited education, institutionalisation, early entry into the criminal justice system, gang affiliation, drug and alcohol abuse, and habituation to prison had likely impaired his choices and diminished his moral culpability. The Court considered that there was a sufficient linkage from his background to the heart of this offending, and that his prospects of rehabilitation were now brighter. The Court considered that an additional discount of around 10 per cent, or six months, was justified for Mr Aramoana's background and personal circumstances, aside from his rehabilitation steps. The Court considered that the Judge had erred in not making any allowance at all for that factor, and that the appeal was within the available range.

The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment, and substituted a sentence of four years and 11 months' imprisonment.

Orders