Hughes v The Queen - [2018] NZHC 1888

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2018-419-000028

[2018] NZHC 1888

BETWEEN
DUNCAN MCLEOD CARTER HUGHES

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 26 July 2018

Appearances:

S Cameron for the Appellant

S F Gilbert for the Respondent

Judgment:

27 July 2018

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 July 2018 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
S Cameron, Hamilton

HUGHES v R [2018] NZHC 1888 [27 July 2018]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Duncan Hughes, pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated robbery.1

[2] On 21 May 2018 in the District Court at Hamilton, Judge Menzies sentenced Mr Hughes to two years and eight months’ imprisonment.2

[3] Mr Hughes appeals his sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. Specifically, he submits that Judge Menzies erred by setting a starting point that was too high. Mr Hughes does not take issue with the discounts given.

[4]The Crown opposes the appeal.

Factual background

[5] At about 6:40 pm on 14 August 2017, Mr Hughes and his two co-offenders drove to the Waihou Dairy. That dairy is owned by the two victims, a husband and wife, and their house adjoins the business.

[6] Mr Hughes and his two co-offenders exited their vehicle wearing items of clothing to conceal their faces. Mr Hughes and one of the other co-offenders were each armed with a sharp implement which appeared to be either a screwdriver or a knife. The other co-offender was armed with a hammer.

[7] Mr Hughes and his two co-offenders then entered the dairy brandishing the weapons. The first victim, the wife, was behind the counter at the time. She saw them enter the dairy and moved to a secure part at the rear of the store, locked the door and called the Police.

[8] The second victim, the husband, was in the body of the dairy stocking a fridge. Upon seeing the three armed offenders waving weapons, and fearful for his safety and that of his family, he told Mr Hughes and his two co-offenders that they could take

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 235(b).
2 R v Hughes [2018] NZDC 10076.

anything they wanted. He then locked himself in the bathroom located at the back of the dairy.

[9] Mr Hughes and his two co-offenders jumped the counter of the dairy and removed the till drawer from the cash register. This contained approximately $650. They also took cigarettes and tobacco products worth $2,000, and confectionery.

[10] One of Mr Hughes’ co-offenders approached a customer in the dairy, presented the knife he was carrying and told him to lie on the ground and empty his pockets.
The customer did so, giving away his cell phone.3

[11]Mr Hughes and his two co-offenders then drove away.

District Court decision

[12] Judge Menzies acknowledged that R v Mako4 is the guideline case for the offence…

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 Hughes v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hughes v The Queen [2018] NZHC 1888
Case: [2018] NZHC 1888
Decision Date: 27 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Duncan Hughes, appealed his sentence for aggravated robbery, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The District Court had sentenced Hughes to two years and eight months’ imprisonment. Hughes contended that the starting point set by the sentencing judge was too high. The Crown opposed the appeal, maintaining that the sentence was within the appropriate range. The High Court found that the starting point was indeed too high, and that the appropriate starting point should have been four years and six months’ imprisonment. The Court noted that while there were aggravating features, such as the presence of multiple offenders and the brandishing of weapons, the level of confrontation and intimidation was less severe than typically seen in aggravated robbery cases. After applying the appropriate discounts for youth, remorse, hearing difficulties, family support, and the guilty plea, the Court determined that the appropriate sentence was two years and four months’ imprisonment. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and imposed a new sentence of two years and four months’ imprisonment.

Orders