Collard-Vea v The Queen - [2018] NZHC 3269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-404-000350

[2018] NZHC 3269

BETWEEN
MARK COLLARD-VEA

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 11 December 2018

Counsel:

RL Thomson for Appellant STL Teppett for Respondent

Judgment:

12 December 2018

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 12 December 2018 at 11 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
RL Thomson, Auckland.
Crown Solicitor, Auckland.

COLLARD-VEA v R [2018] NZHC 3269 [12 December 2018]

The appeal

[1] Mr Collard-Vea and other young men unlawfully took a car and committed burglary and then aggravated robbery. The offending ended after an “extremely dangerous” Police chase.1 Mr Collard-Vea was then only 17. He pleaded guilty 10 days before trial. Judge R J Collins imposed a sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment.2 Mr Collard-Vea appeals. He contends the sentence is manifestly excessive. Attention is confined to the starting point and guilty-plea discount; Mr Collard-Vea acknowledges the Judge’s discounts for youth and remorse were fair.

An all too common fact pattern

[2] On the evening of 3 August 2017, or perhaps in the early hours the next day, Mr Collard-Vea and two others stole a Mazda car in Pt Chevalier from outside a home. They drove it to a service station in New Lynn, arriving a little before 2 am. They broke inside the service station by smashing the glass door with a rock. And, stole packets of cigarettes. The attendant fled to the safe room. He activated what is described as a smoke device, presumably for protection.

[3] Mr Collard-Vea and his associates then drove to a service station in Sandringham. There, they again used a rock to smash their way inside. The attendant activated the panic alarm and fled to the safe room. One of the young men with Mr Collard-Vea repeatedly punched the attendant to the head, and once to the arm. Mr Collard-Vea and others stole cigarettes and till takings.

[4] Police encountered the stolen car at 2.37 am. Its driver—who is not identified in the summary of facts—did not stop. Police gave chase for a little under half an hour. Everyone was apprehended. Mr Collard-Vea declined to speak to Police.

[5] Unsurprisingly, the assaulted attendant describes the offending as “very distressing”. He left that job “due to emotional distress” and has not worked since. The other attendant has not been greatly affected. The car owner has felt “quite

1 Summary of facts.
2 R v Collard [2018] NZDC 9400.

anxious to know that someone was lurking around on my street in the early hours of the morning”. He remains worried when he parks his car on the road.

Sentencing

[6] The Judge adopted a four-year starting point in relation to the aggravated robbery, one he described by reference to an earlier sentencing as “rock bottom”.3 The Judge added 12 months for the balance of the offending. The Judge then discounted the sentence by:

(a)30 percent for youth.

(b)13 percent…

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 Collard-Vea v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Collard-Vea v The Queen [2018] NZHC 3269
Case: [2018] NZHC 3269
Decision Date: 12 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against Mark Collard-Vea, who had been sentenced by Judge Collins to two years and three months’ imprisonment for aggravated robbery, burglary, and unlawful car taking, was heard in the High Court of New Zealand. Collard-Vea argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, with his contention focused on the starting point and the guilty-plea discount. He accepted that the discounts for his youth and remorse were fair.

The legal issues before the court were whether the starting point for sentencing should not have exceeded four and a half years and whether the discount for the guilty plea was appropriately applied. The court had to consider the nature of the crimes, the presence of aggravating factors, and the sentencing principles established in previous cases.

The court found that the starting point for the aggravated robbery was correctly set at four years, considering the forced entry and the attendant's presence. The court distinguished the case from Reweti v R, where the aggravated robbery was less serious. The guilty-plea discount of 20 percent was deemed "extremely generous" by the court, even considering the late plea and strong evidence against Collard-Vea. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence was upheld.

The final orders were that the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment stood affirmed.

Orders