Heemi v The the Queen - [2022] NZHC 2141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2022-463-77 CRI-2022-463-78

CRI-2022-463-79 [2022] NZHC 2141

BETWEEN JAMAINE HEEMI, RANDYL PAINTER AND
SAXON LIDDINGTON
Appellants

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 10 and 26 August, 2 September 2022

Counsel:

S Mills for Heemi and Painter A Schulze for Liddington

A Maino for Crown

Judgment:

2 September 2022

Reissued:

6 September 2022

REDACTED JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 September 2022 at 3.00 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….

Solicitors: Lance Lawson, Rotorua South
Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua

HEEMI AND ORS v R [2022] NZHC 2141 [2 September 2022]

Background

[1] Saxon Liddington, Randyl Painter and Jamaine Heemi each pleaded guilty to one charge of assault with intent to rob.1 On 27 June 2022, Judge D J McDonald sentenced Mr Liddington to two years and six months’ imprisonment, and Mr Painter and Mr Heemi to two years and three months’ imprisonment.2 They appeal against their respective sentences.

The offending

[2] In January 2021, Mr Liddington ordered a pair of shoes online. They were delivered to his previous address in Turangi. He formerly resided there with the victims.

[3] Mr Liddington contacted one of the victims, Mr R, about his shoes. This resulted in a dispute about money he owed.

[4] Mr Liddington hatched a plan to rob the address. He created detailed diagrams of the layout of the property. These included depicting the property and nearby reserve from birds-eye view. He highlighted rooms of interest where valuable items were located.

[5] On 15 March 2021, Mr Liddington enlisted his close friend, Mr Painter, to assist. They agreed to steal the shoes, a PlayStation console and money. The following day Mr Painter’s cousin, Mr Heemi, also agreed to participate.

[6] On 17 March 2021, the trio asked a caregiver to drive them from Taupō to Tūrangi. They were dropped off at the nearby reserve. There they stashed some belongings in blackberry bushes. These included a change of clothes, caps, sunglasses and a large kitchen knife.

[7] The trio headed towards the property. Each held a steel pipe. The pipes were about 70 centimetres long and weighed around one kilogram. They were table legs

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 236(1)(b) and (c): maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 R v Liddington [2022] NZDC 11966.

repurposed by Mr Liddington. Each also wore coloured bandannas across their faces and sunglasses.

[8] The trio entered through the backdoor. They walked through the kitchen to the lounge. Mr R was sitting on the couch.

[9] Mr Painter hit Mr R with the pipe several times to the head. Mr R lifted his arms to defend himself. Mr Painter continued striking at his arms. Mr Heemi also attacked Mr R with his pipe. He struck at his legs.

[10] Mr R yelled out for help. Another occupant was alerted to the attack and ran down the hallway. Mr Liddington was standing by the hallway door holding…

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 Heemi v The the Queen

Details

AGLC: Heemi v The the Queen [2022] NZHC 2141
Case: [2022] NZHC 2141
Decision Date: 2 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jamaine Heemi, Randyl Painter, and Saxon Liddington each appealed against their respective sentences for assault with intent to rob. They had each pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to two years and three months' and two years and six months' imprisonment, respectively. The High Court considered whether the District Court had erred in sentencing by adopting a starting point that was too high and by failing to give sufficient weight to personal mitigating factors. The Court found that a starting point of six years and nine months was more appropriate for Liddington. The Court also found that the District Court had failed to give sufficient weight to the appellants' personal mitigating factors, including remorse, good character, and rehabilitative prospects. The Court held that a further discount of approximately five per cent was appropriate for each offender. The Court quashed the sentences of imprisonment and substituted sentences of home detention for each offender.

The Court also made orders for emotional reparation payments in favour of Mr R, the victim, in the amount of $1,500 each for Liddington, Heemi, and Painter.

Orders