Lamatoa v The Queen - [2017] NZHC 2375

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2017-412-000037 [2017] NZHC 2375

BETWEEN
JAMIE ALBERT LAMATOA

Appellant

AND

THE CROWN Respondent

Hearing: 11 September 2017

Appearances:

S Saunderson-Warner for the Appellant
R D Smith for the Crown

Judgment:

29 September 2017

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] Between 10 October 2016 and 29 October 2016, Mr Lamatoa’s brother, Mr Bell, drove from Oamaru to Waimate and to an address in Moeraki. He forced his way into five residential properties and stole property worth at least $13,500. At the first of those properties, he broke the lock of an exterior door and ripped off wooden framing, doing damage that was going to cost an estimated $1,107 to repair. He used a jemmy bar to smash an exterior door at three further properties. The items he took from the properties included electrical goods, personal effects, jewellery and, from one property, four firearms.

[2] On 2 November 2016, Mr Bell and Mr Lamatoa travelled from Oamaru to Waimate and were involved in the burglary of two further residential properties. At the first of those properties they stole items worth $1,100. At the second, they stole
items worth more than $5,000.

LAMATOA v R [2017] NZHC 2375 [29 September 2017]

[3] On 3 November 2016, the Police executed a search warrant at the offenders’ address in Weston, near Oamaru. They recovered a small number of items from the earlier burglaries in which Mr Bell was involved.

[4] On 4 November 2016, a member of the public handed to the Police a suitcase containing stolen property from three earlier burglaries in Waimate. It had been abandoned on a rural roadside near Oamaru. The Police also found other items including a jemmy bar. Subsequent enquiries identified Mr Lamatoa as the person responsible for the disposal of the suitcase and the other items located, and that he did this on the day the search warrants were executed at his home address.

[5] Mr Bell subsequently pleaded guilty to eight charges of burglary. He was sentenced on 9 August 2017 by Judge Phillips,1 the sentence imposed being consistent with a sentencing indication he had given on 11 May 2017. The starting point sentence adopted for his offending was three years and six months. After an uplift for his previous criminal record and a credit for guilty pleas, Mr Bell’s end sentence was three years’ imprisonment.

[6] In March 2017, Mr Lamatoa pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary, committed jointly with Mr Bell, in connection with the two burglaries that occurred at Waimate on 2 November 2016. He also pleaded guilty to a charge that, between
10 October 2016 and 3 November 2016, at Oamaru, he received a suitcase containing various items of stolen personal property valued at over $3,000 from Mr Bell, knowing that suitcase of property had been stolen.

[7] On 1 June 2017, Mr Lamatoa was sentenced by Judge Phillips. The Judge adopted a starting point for…

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 Lamatoa v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lamatoa v The Queen [2017] NZHC 2375
Case: [2017] NZHC 2375
Decision Date: 29 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Jamie Albert Lamatoa appeals against his sentence for burglary and receiving stolen property. The respondent, the Crown, argues that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The appeal hinges on the disparity between the sentences of Lamatoa and his co-defendant, Mr. Bell, who committed more serious offences. Lamatoa's counsel argues that his client's sentence should be reduced due to the leniency shown to Mr. Bell. However, the Court finds that while there was a disparity in the sentences, it did not reach the level of gross disproportionality that would warrant reducing Lamatoa's sentence. The Court acknowledges the seriousness of Bell's offending but maintains that reducing Lamatoa's sentence would risk further undermining the integrity of the criminal justice system.

The central legal issue in this appeal is whether the sentence imposed on Mr. Lamatoa is manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the disparity with the sentence imposed on his co-defendant, Mr. Bell. The Court must determine if the sentence reflects the seriousness of Mr. Lamatoa's offending and if it is within the appropriate sentencing range. The Court also examines if the disparity between the sentences is justified or if it requires intervention to maintain the integrity of the justice system. The Crown argues that Mr. Bell's sentence, though lenient, was not an error that necessitates a reduction in Mr. Lamatoa's sentence. The Court agrees, holding that reducing Mr. Lamatoa's sentence would risk further compromising the criminal justice system. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the original sentence stands.

Orders