KOHI ROLLESTON AND THE KING - [2024] NZCA 494

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA273/2024
[2024] NZCA 494

BETWEEN	KOHI ROLLESTON Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	27 August 2024
Court:	Cooke, Peters and Grice JJ
Counsel:	C G Nolan for Appellant I L M Archibald for Respondent
Judgment:	30 September 2024 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Grice J)

Introduction

Mr Rolleston was convicted following a guilty plea on one charge of robbery.[1] He was also convicted on one charge of assault with intent to injure, and one charge of driving while disqualified.
[1]As explained below, the guilty plea in respect of this charge was entered part way through the jury trial.
On 10 April 2024, Mr Rolleston was sentenced in the District Court to five years and one month’s imprisonment.[2] He was also disqualified from driving for 12 months from the date of the sentencing judgment.[3]
[2]R v Rolleston [2024] NZDC 7811 [Sentencing notes] at [62].
[3]At [65].
Mr Rolleston appeals his sentence on the basis that the Judge erred in imposing a starting point that was too high, resulting in an end sentence that was manifestly excessive.

Summary of the offending

The offending took place on 29 August 2022. Late in the evening, Mr Rolleston and his associate knocked on the door of a unit that Ms Williams was visiting. The offenders were unknown to the two victims. When Ms Williams answered the door, they asked her to drive them somewhere, and she refused. Mr Rolleston and his associate left, before returning a few minutes later. Mr Sloane, who was the occupant of the unit, opened the door, and Mr Rolleston punched him multiple times in the head, causing him to fall to the ground. When Ms Williams refused demands to hand over the keys to her car which was parked outside, Mr Rolleston punched her several times in the face and she fell. There was a struggle as Mr Rolleston and his associate tried to take her handbag. The offenders ran outside, followed by Ms Williams. Mr Rolleston then chased her as she tried to call the police. He took Ms Williams phone and threw it to the ground, and there was a further physical altercation. The offenders left with the handbag containing her keys, cash, and other items of value.
The Crown Summary of Facts (SOF) also notes that Mr Rolleston’s associate was standing next the vehicle holding a large knife when Ms Williams followed them out of the address. According to the SOF, when the associate saw her come outside, he held up the knife and said: “you better fuck off bitch”.

Decision on appeal

The Judge noted that the guideline judgment for aggravated robbery is R v Mako, which can be adapted for sentencing on robbery charges.[4]
[4]At [49], citing R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170 (CA).
The Judge identified a number of aggravating features of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read KOHI ROLLESTON AND THE KING and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZCA 494
Decision Date: 30 September 2024 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kohi Rolleston appealed against his sentence of five years and one month's imprisonment, imposed by the District Court for charges of robbery, assault with intent to injure, and driving while disqualified. Rolleston argued that the starting point for his sentence was too high, resulting in an end sentence that was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the District Court judge erred in assessing the starting point for Rolleston's sentence and whether the final sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge was entitled to consider the victims' injuries and the emotional impact on them, as these were consistent with the agreed summary of facts. The Court also found that the starting point of five years and six months' imprisonment was within the available range, given the aggravating features of the offence, including planning and premeditation, use of a weapon, multiple offenders, unlawful entry into a person's home at night, physical violence resulting in injuries to two victims, and property taken. The Court agreed with the Crown that the 10 per cent discount given for the guilty plea was generous, considering that it was entered after the trial had begun. The Court concluded that the end sentence of five years and one month's imprisonment was not manifestly excessive in the circumstances.

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders