Mahia v The Queen - [2014] NZHC 3284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI 2014-463-62 [2014] NZHC 3284

BETWEEN
SHAUN MEKE MAHIA

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

CRI 2014-463-64

BETWEEN TUHUKIA TYSSON MAHIA Appellant

ANDTHE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 17 December 2014

Counsel:

A C Balme for S Mahia
T Bayley for T Mahia
M L Wong for Respondent

Judgment:

17 December 2014

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Crown Law, Wellington
Counsel:
A C Balme, Tauranga
T Bayley, Tauranga

MAHIA v R [2014] NZHC 3284 [17 December 2014]

The appeal

[1] On 11 August 2014, Mr Shaun Mahia, Mr Tuhukia Mahia and Mr Matthew Kingi each appeared for sentence before Judge Cameron, in the District Court at Tauranga, on a charge of aggravated robbery.

[2] Mr Kingi was sentenced to term of imprisonment of four years five months; Mr Shaun Mahia to a period of three years two months; and Mr Tuhukia Mahia to a period of two years seven months imprisonment. In addition, orders for reparation, destruction of items of property and driver disqualification were made.

[3] While Mr Kingi has not challenged his sentence, Mr Shaun Mahia and

Mr Tuhukia Mahia each appeal against the sentences imposed on them.

Grounds of appeal

[4] Mr Shaun Mahia’s appeal is advanced on the basis that the Judge erred in

taking a starting point of six years imprisonment.

[5] Mr Tuhukia Mahia’s appeal is based on three grounds, two of which overlap:

(a) The first is that the starting point of five years imprisonment was too high.

(b)The second is that the Judge took a “mathematical” approach to sentencing which resulted in an end sentence that was clearly excessive.

(c) The third is a suggestion of unjust disparity arising out of the terms of imprisonment imposed on the Mahia brothers.

The reason I say that the second and third grounds merge to some extent, is that each requires a consideration of the personal circumstances of each offender in light of differing risk assessments being made of them in the pre-sentence materials. Essentially, Ms Bayley, for Mr Tukuhia Mahia, submits that the Judge should have

expressed more transparently how he arrived at the sentences, given those differing circumstances.

The facts

[6] On the evening of 27 May 2014, Mr Kingi, Mr Tuhukia Mahia and Mr Shaun Mahia were travelling along Levers Road, in Matua. They were in Mr Kingi’s motor vehicle. Mr Tuhukia Mahia was driving, with the others in passenger seats. At some point a plan to rob a dairy on Levers Road was hatched. That was to involve Mr Tuhukia Mahia waiting in the car, while the others entered the dairy to take money and cigarettes.

[7] Initially, some reconnaissance took place. The car was driven past the dairy. At that time they could see two people inside. At that stage, the car was taken to the address at which the Mahia brothers were living. They changed into clothing that provided a disguise. When the three drove back along Levers Road, they…

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 Mahia v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Mahia v The Queen [2014] NZHC 3284
Case: [2014] NZHC 3284
Decision Date: 17 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mahia v The Queen involves an appeal by Shaun Mahia and Tuhukia Mahia against the sentences imposed on them by the District Court following their conviction for aggravated robbery. The appeals focus on the starting point and overall appropriateness of the sentences, with Shaun Mahia arguing that a six-year starting point was inappropriate and Tuhukia Mahia contesting the five-year starting point, the mathematical approach to sentencing, and the alleged unjust disparity between the sentences of the two brothers. The High Court was tasked with determining whether there was an error in the District Court's sentencing that warranted a different sentence.

The court began by examining the sentencing principles applicable to aggravated robbery, particularly the guidelines set out in R v Mako. The starting point for a robbery involving the use of a weapon and multiple offenders, as in this case, can be as high as six years, especially in "bad cases." The court assessed the starting points and reductions made by the District Court, considering factors such as the role of each appellant, the use of weapons, disguises, and planning, and the harm caused to the victim. The court concluded that the District Court's starting point for Shaun Mahia, though at the higher end of the range, was justified by the aggravating factors and was thus appropriate. For Tuhukia Mahia, the court found that the five-year starting point was within the appropriate range, and that the District Court did not take an overly mathematical approach to sentencing. The court also determined that the sentences did not create an unjust disparity that would undermine public confidence in the justice system.

In summary, the appeals by both Shaun Mahia and Tuhukia Mahia were dismissed. The court upheld the sentences imposed by the District Court, finding no error in the starting points or the overall approach to sentencing.

Orders