Lolesio v The King - [2025] NZHC 1421

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2025-404-000057

[2025] NZHC 1421

BETWEEN
RUSSELL LOLE PUA FETOA’I LOLESIO

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 19 May 2025

Appearances:

R S Murdock & D J Taumihau for the Appellant

N C Vaughan & C R Armstrong for the Respondent

Judgment:

3 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF TAHANA J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 June 2025 at 3.30pm

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Public Defence Service, Manukau
Crown Solicitor, Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau

LOLESIO v R [Appeal against sentence] [2025] NZHC 1421 [3 June 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Lolesio appeals a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.1 He was charged with possession of an offensive weapon,2 resisting police,3 unlawfully taking a motor vehicle (three charges),4 aggravated robbery (party),5 dangerous driving,6 aggravated robbery,7 attempted unlawful taking of a motor vehicle (two charges),8 wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm,9 aggravated assault,10 and reckless driving.11

[2] Mr Lolesio argues that the sentence was manifestly excessive because of the global starting point adopted by the sentencing Judge and the level of discount applied for his background, remorse and rehabilitative prospects. The Crown opposes the appeal and submits that the end sentence is not manifestly excessive.

Background

Possession of an offensive weapon and resisting police

[3] On 29 October 2023, Mr Lolesio was seen by members of the public at Cornwall Park looking into parked cars and holding what was described as a screwdriver. When the police arrived and informed him that he was being detained for a search for an offensive weapon, he produced a snapped badminton racket handle and held it in front of him. The police removed the handle and told him he was under arrest. He adopted a fighting stance and the police deployed O/C spray. Mr Lolesio would not put his hands behind his back when asked. After a brief struggle, the police handcuffed him.

1      R v Lolesio [2024] NZDC 31482 at [82].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(a). Maximum penalty: 3 years imprisonment.
3      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 23(a). Maximum penalty: 3 months’ imprisonment or $2000 fine.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 226(1). Maximum penalty: 7 years imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1) and 235(c). Maximum penalty: 14 years imprisonment.
6      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b). Maximum penalty: 3 months’ imprisonment or $4500 fine and 6 months disqualification.
7      Crimes Act 1961, s 235(a). Maximum penalty: 14 years imprisonment.
8      Crimes Act 1961, s 226(2). Maximum penalty: 2 years imprisonment.
9      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1). Maximum penalty: 14 years imprisonment.
10     Crimes Act 1961, s 192(1)(c). Maximum penalty: 3 years imprisonment.
11     Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(a). Maximum penalty: 3 months’ imprisonment, $4500 fine and 6 months disqualification.

[4] Mr Lolesio told police he had smoked methamphetamine and been awake for three days.

Unlawfully taking a motor vehicle and aggravated robbery (party)

[5] On the evening of 4 November…

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 Lolesio v The King

Details

AGLC: Lolesio v The King [2025] NZHC 1421
Case: [2025] NZHC 1421
Decision Date: 3 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Russell Lolesio appeals against a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment imposed for multiple charges, including possession of an offensive weapon, resisting police, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, aggravated robbery, dangerous driving, attempted unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, aggravated assault, and reckless driving. The primary contention is that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the global starting point adopted and the level of discount applied for background, remorse, and rehabilitative prospects. The Crown argues that the sentence is not manifestly excessive.

The court considered whether the global starting point was manifestly excessive. While the defence argued that the adjustment for totality was insufficient, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It determined that the Judge appropriately adopted a starting point of 12 years and six months’ imprisonment, which aligns with the gravity of Lolesio’s overall offending.

The court further assessed whether the discount for background, remorse, and rehabilitative prospects was adequate. The Judge applied a four per cent discount, which the defence argued was inadequate. The court found that a 10 per cent discount for background and a five per cent discount for remorse and rehabilitative prospects were appropriate, amounting to an overall discount of 15 per cent.

The appeal was allowed. The cumulative sentences of five years for the aggravated robbery and five years for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm were substituted with sentences of four and a half years and four years, respectively. The effective total sentence was reduced to eight and a half years’ imprisonment.

Orders