Marsh v R

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Wiremu Kori Marsh and Wade Armstrong appealed their sentences imposed by the sentencing Judge. Both appellants were convicted of aggravated robbery and received sentences of four years and nine months' imprisonment and five years' imprisonment, respectively. The appellants argued that the sentences were manifestly excessive, primarily due to the starting point being too high. Armstrong also argued that the three-month uplift for his previous convictions was unwarranted. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the starting point and the uplift for Armstrong's previous convictions were appropriate.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing Judge was entitled to consider the premeditation and the home invasion elements of the offence, the starting point of four years and nine months' imprisonment was excessive. The Court noted that the property stolen had a limited value, and therefore a starting point of three and a half years' imprisonment would have more accurately reflected the seriousness of the offending. Regarding the uplift for Armstrong's previous convictions, the Court accepted that the sentencing Judge's decision was warranted, as Armstrong's history of violence and dishonesty demonstrated a high risk to the community. The Court held that there was no need to adjust the sentence to match the sentence imposed on Marsh, even if it may be viewed as somehow falling short of that which should have otherwise been imposed.

Wiremu Marsh's appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentence of four years and nine months' imprisonment was quashed and substituted with a sentence of three years and six months' imprisonment. Wade Armstrong's appeal against sentence was also allowed. The sentence of five years' imprisonment was quashed and substituted with a sentence of three years and nine months' imprisonment.