Legal Research
Cases
Maiko v The Queen

Maiko v The Queen

Case [2020] NZHC 2958 10 November 2020

Sentencing

Rehabilitation

Discounts in Sentencing

Manifestly Excessive Sentence

Home Detention

Mitigating Factors

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-404-000371 CRI-2020-404-000372

CRI-2020-404-000373 [2020] NZHC 2958

BETWEEN
LUCAS MAIKO

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 2 November 2020

Appearances:

G H Vear & A Oh for Appellant B S Rorrison for Respondent

Judgment:

10 November 2020

JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 November 2020 at 3:00 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Public Defence Service, Auckland

MAIKO v R [2020] NZHC 2958 [10 November 2020]

Introduction

[1] Lucas Maiko (the appellant) appeals the decision of Judge E P Paul delivered in the District Court at Auckland on 28 August 2020, sentencing him to two years and five months’ imprisonment on three charges of aggravated robbery.1 He was also convicted and discharged on charges of driving in a dangerous manner2 and failing to stop for police3 in respect of which he was convicted and discharged and disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for a period of six months.

Background

[2] In the space of 21 days between 21 July 2019 and 11 August 2019, the appellant then just 20 years4 of age, committed three separate aggravated robberies.

[3]The first was committed at a petrol station on 21 July 2019. At approximately

7.30 am that day, the appellant and an associate entered the Gull service station in Avondale. They approached the victim and purchased a chocolate bar so that the till was opened. Once the till was open the appellant held the victim against the wall while his associate took cash from the till. The appellant and his associate then fled and drove away in a vehicle.

[4] The second occurred at a bar in Auckland’s Royal Oak on 3 August 2019. The appellant was at the bar with an associate. The bar had a gambling area and the appellant and his associate spent some time loitering in that area and playing on the slot machines. The appellant then asked the Duty Manager of the bar to change some money, and when the Bar Manager agreed and opened the till, the appellant moved behind the counter and pushed him away from the till. The appellant’s associate then went to the till and began taking cash from it. While this was happening the appellant presented what appeared to be a switchblade knife to the Duty Manager and threatened

1      R v Maiko [2020] NZDC 17444.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b).
3      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52A(1)(a)(ii), 52A(3), 52A(6), and 114(2).
4      Date of birth 24 July 1999.

to assault him if he interfered, causing the manager to fear for his safety. The appellant and his associate then ran from the bar taking $3200 in cash.

[5] The third aggravated robbery was committed on 11 August 2019 when the appellant robbed another petrol station. Just before 8.00am that day he arrived at a Mobil service station in Parnell. He approached a staff member and demanded…

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 Maiko v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Maiko v The Queen [2020] NZHC 2958
Case: [2020] NZHC 2958
Decision Date: 10 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lucas Maiko appeals against his sentence of two years and five months’ imprisonment for three counts of aggravated robbery. The High Court of New Zealand considered whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive. The appellant pleaded guilty to the three counts of aggravated robbery, committed within a three-week period in 2019. He also pleaded guilty to charges of dangerous driving and failing to stop for police. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for the aggravated robberies and discharged and disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for the other two offences. The appellant argues that the District Court erred by not granting a greater discount in recognition of his personal circumstances and by overlooking his restrictive bail conditions. The Crown submits that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The High Court found that the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive as the District Court had failed to provide reasons for excluding a discount that it had determined was warranted. The High Court allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of ten months’ home detention.

Orders