Jordan James Ataria v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 31/2011
[2011] NZSC 66

JORDAN JAMES ATARIA

THE QUEEN

Court: Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ

Counsel: R Lithgow QC for Applicant
S B Edwards for Crown

Judgment: 17 June 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

The proposed appeal against sentence relates to an alleged disparity in the sentence given to Mr Ataria for his involvement in a serious assault by a group of people. He complains that the sentence of six years imprisonment imposed after trial was manifestly excessive when a comparison is made with a sentence of eight months’ home detention plus community work given to a youth who was also involved and who had pleaded guilty.
The Court of Appeal[1] concluded that the sentencing Judge considered that the starting point for the sentencing of the youth was low. If, as we think, the sentence imposed on Mr Ataria was appropriate, then the sentencing Judge was entitled not to place much weight on the other sentence. Mr Ataria was 22 at the time of the offending so he was quite a lot older than the youth. The difference in the sentencing levels reflected that fact and the different pleas.
[1] Simeon and Ataria v R [2010] NZCA 559.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jordan James Ataria v The Queen involves an appeal against the sentence handed down to Mr Ataria for his involvement in a serious group assault. The appellant argues that the six-year imprisonment sentence imposed after trial was manifestly excessive compared to the eight-month home detention sentence plus community work given to a co-offender who pleaded guilty. The Supreme Court of New Zealand was tasked with deciding whether the sentence was appropriate, considering the disparity in sentences and the difference in age and plea between the appellant and the co-offender. The Court of Appeal had previously found that the sentencing judge had considered the lower starting point for the co-offender's sentence, and that the difference in sentencing levels reflected the appellant's age and plea. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the application for leave to appeal, confirming that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the six-year imprisonment sentence imposed on Mr Ataria was manifestly excessive when compared to the eight-month home detention sentence given to a co-offender who pleaded guilty. The Court had to consider the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the differences between the appellant and co-offender, including age and plea. The Court also had to determine whether the sentencing judge had correctly considered the lower starting point for the co-offender's sentence and whether the disparity in sentencing reflected the differences between the two offenders.

The Supreme Court found that the six-year imprisonment sentence imposed on Mr Ataria was appropriate, considering the differences in age and plea between him and the co-offender. The Court of Appeal had already concluded that the sentencing judge had considered the lower starting point for the co-offender's sentence, and that the difference in sentencing levels reflected the appellant's age and plea. The Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning and found no basis to interfere with the sentencing judge's decision. The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, confirming that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.

No further orders were made by the Supreme Court. The dismissal of the application for leave to appeal meant that the original sentence imposed on Mr Ataria stood, and he remained subject to the six-year imprisonment sentence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established