Inamata v The Queen - [2016] NZCA 115

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA137/2015
[2016] NZCA 115

BETWEEN	TOKA INAMATA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	11 March 2016
Court:	Randerson, Asher and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	P K Hamlin for Appellant M D Downs for Respondent
Judgment:	11 April 2016 at 2:30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave is granted to adduce further evidence on appeal.
BThe appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CThe sentence appeal is to be determined in accordance with the procedure set out in [56] of this judgment.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction
Background facts
The decision to proceed
Subsequent events
The evidence received on appeal

Mr Inamata’s evidence
The cellphone evidence
The Crown evidence adduced on appeal
Mr Robert Tuku-Inamata
Mr Eric Rameka
Ms Reiner Inamata
Mr Jamie Rameka
Mr Wiremu Inamata

Our assessment
Did Mr Inamata’s absence result in an unfair trial?
Other considerations
Result

[1]
[5]
[7]
[11]
[13]
[15]
[22]
[25]
[33]
[37]
[40]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[50]
[54]
[55]

Introduction

Mr Toka Inamata appeals against his conviction and sentence for his part in the armed robbery of the Whitehouse Tavern in Papakura on 25 May 2013. He was sentenced to nine years imprisonment. This judgment deals only with his conviction appeal.
Mr Inamata was to be tried in the High Court on 29 September 2014 along with two co-offenders, Mr Bowen Martin and Mr Trent Wellington, but he breached bail prior to trial and did not appear on the scheduled date. The trial judge, Wylie J, ruled at the commencement of the trial that it should proceed in Mr Inamata’s absence.
The trial then proceeded with Mr Inamata being represented by Mr Hamlin. The jury found all three defendants guilty of aggravated robbery, five charges of kidnapping, two charges of threatening to kill, and two charges of conversion. Mr Wellington and Mr Inamata were found guilty of a charge of aggravated injury and Mr Inamata was also found guilty of a charge of possession of explosives.
Mr Martin and Mr Wellington appealed against their convictions but the appeals were dismissed.[1] Mr Inamata denies having any part in the robbery and seeks leave of this Court to adduce evidence to support a defence of alibi. It is submitted on his behalf that a miscarriage of justice has occurred by reason of the trial proceeding in his absence.

Background facts

[1]Martin v R [2015] NZCA 606.

The Crown case was that the robbery involved six offenders. Two of them, a man to whom we will refer as XX[2] and Mr Robert Tuku-Inamata, pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery in advance of trial. XX was a key Crown witness. He identified four other participants in the robbery: Mr Martin, Mr Wellington, Mr Inamata and a sixth man who has never been charged.
[2]XX has permanent name suppression.
It is convenient to repeat here the summary of the Crown case which we set out in the judgment on the…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Inamata v The Queen [2016] NZCA 115
Case: [2016] NZCA 115
Decision Date: 11 April 2016 at 2:30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Toka Inamata appeals against his conviction for his involvement in the armed robbery of the Whitehouse Tavern in Papakura on 25 May 2013. He was sentenced to nine years imprisonment and appeals against his conviction, contending that his absence from trial resulted in an unfair trial and a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The appeal was heard by Randerson, Asher and Clifford JJ, with P K Hamlin for the appellant and M D Downs for the respondent. The trial judge, Wylie J, ruled at the commencement of the trial that it should proceed in Mr Inamata’s absence. The trial then proceeded with Mr Inamata being represented by Mr Hamlin. The jury found all three defendants guilty of aggravated robbery, five charges of kidnapping, two charges of threatening to kill, and two charges of conversion. Mr Wellington and Mr Inamata were found guilty of a charge of aggravated injury and Mr Inamata was also found guilty of a charge of possession of explosives. Mr Inamata denies having any part in the robbery and seeks leave of this Court to adduce evidence to support a defence of alibi. It is submitted on his behalf that a miscarriage of justice has occurred by reason of the trial proceeding in his absence. The Court held that the trial judge was correct to proceed with the trial in Mr Inamata’s absence in the circumstances of this case and that, in any event, for the reasons given, there was no unfairness to Mr Inamata in consequence of that decision. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Orders