Inamata v R - [2017] NZCA 556

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA100/2017
[2017] NZCA 556

BETWEEN	WALLY INAMATA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	9 November 2017
Court:	Harrison, Courtney and Toogood JJ
Counsel:	B L Sellars for Appellant A J Ewing for Respondent
Judgment:	4 December 2017 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Toogood J)

Introduction

Wally Inamata appeals against a sentence of six years’ imprisonment imposed in the District Court at North Shore following his conviction after a jury trial on one charge of aggravated robbery.[1] The sole issue is whether Judge Down was justified in ordering under s 86(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002 that Mr Inamata should serve a minimum period of three years’ imprisonment.

Facts

[1]R v Inamata [2017] NZDC 880.

The facts may be stated briefly. In November 2012, just before 11.00 am, Mr Inamata and two other men walked into a jeweller’s shop on Broadway in Newmarket, Auckland, wearing hooded jackets with their faces covered with scarves. A fourth man waited outside the store as a lookout. Mr Inamata shoved an employee aside and then smashed a cabinet with one of the two hammers the group had with them. They stole watches and items of jewellery valued at over $980,000 within 30 seconds of entering the store and made a quick getaway in a stolen car which was abandoned some kilometres away. Mr Inamata and his female partner had planned the robbery over several days. They kept the stolen property but paid the other offenders for their assistance. The police recovered only two of the stolen watches and no other property.

District Court

In her written submissions and at the hearing, Ms Ewing properly conceded on behalf of the Crown that the Judge had erred in not forewarning counsel that he intended to impose a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI).[2] Mr Inamata’s counsel was unfairly deprived of an opportunity to argue that the finite sentence imposed by the Judge was sufficient by itself to meet all relevant sentencing purposes. In those circumstances, we consider the imposition of an MPI afresh in the light of the submissions made to this Court.[3]

Decision

[2]R v Boyd CA89/03, 24 June 2003 at [16]; R v Grant [2009] NZCA 266 at [18]; and Byford v R [2011] NZCA 116 at [25].

[3]Fleming v R [2011] NZCA 646 at [16]–[17]; and R v Grant [2009] NZCA 266 at [19].

The Sentencing Act provides as follows:
86Imposition of minimum period of imprisonment in relation to determinate sentence of imprisonment
…
(2)The court may impose a minimum period of imprisonment that is longer than the period otherwise applicable under section 84(1) of the Parole Act 2002 if it is satisfied that that period is insufficient for all or any of the following purposes:
(a)holding the offender accountable for the harm done to the victim and the community by the offending;
(b) denouncing the conduct in which…

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 Inamata v R

Details

AGLC: Inamata v R [2017] NZCA 556
Case: [2017] NZCA 556
Decision Date: 4 December 2017 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wally Inamata appeals against a sentence of six years' imprisonment imposed by the District Court at North Shore following his conviction for aggravated robbery. The sole issue is whether the sentencing judge was justified in ordering under s 86(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002 that Inamata should serve a minimum period of three years' imprisonment. The facts of the case involve Inamata and two other men robbing a jeweller’s shop in Newmarket, Auckland. The group stole watches and jewellery valued at over $980,000. The District Court judge did not forewarn counsel that he intended to impose a minimum period of imprisonment, depriving Inamata's counsel of an opportunity to argue against it.

The Court considered whether the sentencing judge was justified in imposing a minimum period of imprisonment. The Crown conceded that the judge had erred in not forewarning counsel about the intended imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment. The Court reviewed the submission that eligibility for parole after serving two years would be insufficient to meet the purposes of deterrence and community protection. The Court found that a minimum period of imprisonment of at least three years was necessary to recognise the need for additional deterrence and the protection of the community from an offender who has demonstrated an inability to learn from his past experiences. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders