IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY
CRI-2012-454-000006 [2012] NZHC 1671
BETWEEN RICKY JOHN BARAKAT Appellant
ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
Hearing: 13 July 2012
Counsel: T C Thackery for Appellant
E C Killeen for Respondent
Judgment: 13 July 2012
ORAL JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J
Introduction
[1] On 8 June 2011 Mr Barakat pleaded guilty in the Levin District Court to nine charges. Six of the charges were for theft. He also pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, one charge of threatening to injure and one charge of breaching the conditions of his release from prison.
[2] On 24 August 2011 Judge Behrens QC sentenced Mr Barakat to an end sentence of two years and five months’ imprisonment. The end sentence imposed in relation to each charge was:
(1) Theft on 17 February 2011 – three months; (2) Theft on 17/18 February 2011 – one year;
(3) Theft on 17/18 February 2011 – three months;
BARAKAT V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC PMN CRI-2012-454-000006 [13 July 2012]
(4) Theft on 22 February 2011 – six months; (5) Theft on 3 March 2011 – one year;
(6) Theft on 3 March 2011 – three months;
(7) Breach of release conditions – two months;
(8)Threatening to injure on 17 February 2011 – convicted and discharged; and
(9) Burglary on 18 February 2011 – two years and five months’
imprisonment.
The offending
[3] Mr Barakat’s first offending occurred on 17 February 2011. He visited The Warehouse in Levin. Mr Barakat entered that shop with his partner and two children. He handed his children a small trolley and they walked to the front door and pushed it through the sensors which were not activated. They returned. Mr Barakat then placed a DVD player (valued at $99.99) and a CD player (valued at
$69.99) in the trolley and they left the store.
[4] When leaving the store, a store assistant approached him and asked to see his receipts. Mr Barakat became extremely aggressive and threatened the store assistant. The store assistant backed off. Mr Barakat drove away.
[5] At some point between 8.30pm on 17 February 2011 and 3.30pm on 18
February 2011 Mr Barakat entered a private property in Otaki. Mr Barakat went to the back of the property and found two unlocked cars. From one he took a Panasonic car stereo, two CD wallets containing 60 CDs and an owner’s manual (valued at $1,826.35). From the other vehicle he took a GPS unit, two CDs, a sales compendium containing business documents, an ASB MasterCard, three Westpac credit cards and a Loyalty Card (valued at $702.60).
[6] On 18 February 2011 at about 12.30pm Mr Barakat entered the Paper Plus stationery store on Oxford Street, Levin. Mr Barakat entered the front door and went straight to the back of the store. He approached a door marked “Staff Only” through which was a storage area, kitchen, bathroom and the owner’s office. He looked around to make sure no one was watching. He then…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Barakat v Police and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2012] NZHC 1671
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues in the appeal were whether the starting point for the burglary charge was too high, whether the six-month uplift for previous convictions was too high, whether credit should have been given for remorse expressed in a letter, and whether home detention should have been considered.
The Court considered the starting point for the burglary charge, which it found to be inappropriately high. The Court concluded that a starting point of 18 months' imprisonment was more appropriate, given the relatively low degree of premeditation and the minimal damage caused. The Court also determined that an uplift of nine months was appropriate to reflect the totality of the offending. Considering the personal factors, the Court found that an uplift of between nine to twelve months would not have been unreasonable for Barakat's previous convictions. The Court deducted two months for Barakat's apparent remorse and further deducted 25% for his guilty plea.
Based on its analysis, the Court concluded that the sentence imposed by the District Court was within the range of sentence that could be imposed. Therefore, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed. However, the Court expressed concern that Barakat requires careful medical and psychological assistance to properly re-integrate into society and avoid reoffending. The Court urged the authorities to provide the necessary assistance to Barakat.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.