CYRESS MARTIN AND THE KING - [2024] NZHC 2772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2024-463-000083

CRI-2024-463-000084 [2024] NZHC 2772

BETWEEN
CYRESS MARTIN

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 19 September 2024

Appearances:

R Adams and S Price for Appellant C Houia for Respondent

Judgment:

25 September 2024

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

[Sentence appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 September 2024 at 3.00 pm, Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Pollett Legal Ltd, Tauranga Counsel: R Adams, Tauranga

MARTIN v R [2024] NZHC 2772 [25 September 2024]

Introduction

[1] Cyress Martin pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery, four charges of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, one charge of burglary, and two charges of failing to assist with a search.

[2] On 11 July 2024, Judge T R Ingram sentenced Mr Martin to six years’ imprisonment.1 Mr Martin appeals to this Court against the sentence.

[3]The appeal is advanced on the grounds that:

(a)the Judge failed to follow relevant and binding High Court authority in fixing the starting point; and

(b)the Judge failed to have sufficient regard to the principles of totality and consistency in sentencing.

[4] It is argued on Mr Martin’s behalf that those errors led to a manifestly excessive sentence.

Background

[5]I take the background to the offending from the Judge’s sentencing notes:

[2] The circumstances are well-known to you, and I do not propose to go into a great deal of detail, suffice it to say that the Mount Maunganui aggravated robbery of Michael Hill Jewellers was an example of the kind of serious youth offending which has become epidemic in New Zealand over the last two or three years.

[3] What happened was that you and your co-offenders arrived at Michael Hill Jewellers. Motor vehicles had been stolen in advance, one to be used as an immediate getaway vehicle and the second to be used later to avoid police detection. There were disguises. There were weapons. They were all manual weapons, there were no firearms. You had a large knife. Elderly staff members were threatened. The public was threatened. This occurred in the middle of the afternoon. There was a potential risk of harm to a number of people. $274,955 worth of jewellery was stolen. Most of it not recovered. The motor vehicles were damaged and although reparation is payable there is no realistic prospect of you ever paying it and I will not order it.

1 R v Martin [2024] NZDC 16252.

[4] There were a total of six offenders. You appeared to have a leadership role in the group of offenders. There was a substantial level of intimidation and danger. The target premises Michael Hill Jewellers had been seriously affected, and I have received material to indicate that the company’s operations had been severely affected in New Zealand, and indeed some stores had been closed because of the effect of these ongoing robberies. The victim impact statements make harrowing reading. There was a substantial…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read CYRESS MARTIN AND THE KING 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 2772
Decision Date: 25 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cyress Martin appealed against his sentence of six years' imprisonment imposed by the District Court for multiple aggravated robberies and other related charges. Martin argued that the sentencing Judge failed to properly apply the principles of totality and consistency in sentencing. The appeal hinged on whether the starting point for the sentence was excessive and whether the Judge had sufficiently considered the totality and consistency principles as required by the Sentencing Act 2002. The Court of Appeal examined the circumstances of the offending, the Judge's reasoning, and the relevant sentencing authorities. The Court found that while the Judge was aware of the principles of totality and consistency, the starting point for the sentence was appropriate given the unique circumstances of the offending. The Court noted that the Judge's starting point was within the range of what other courts have considered appropriate for similar offending. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with respect to the starting point, although the sentence was slightly reduced to reflect the totality principle more accurately, resulting in a sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment on the lead charge. The sentences on the other charges remained unchanged.

Orders