Martin v R - [2016] NZCA 213

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA732/2014
[2016] NZCA 213

BETWEEN	BOWEN CONRAD MARTIN Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA43/2015
BETWEEN	TRENT WELLINGTON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA137/2015
BETWEEN	TOKA INAMATA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:

Randerson, Asher and Clifford JJ

Counsel:

M M Mason for Appellant Martin
I A Jayanandan for Appellant Wellington
P K Hamlin for Appellant Inamata
M D Downs for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

19 May 2016 at 2:30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(SENTENCE APPEALS)

AThe appellant Mr Inamata is granted an extension of time to appeal against sentence.
BThe appeals against sentence are all dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

Introduction

These sentence appeals arise from an armed robbery of the Whitehouse Tavern in Papakura on 25 May 2013 involving six offenders. In previous judgments we have dismissed appeals against conviction by all three appellants.[1]
[1]Martin v R [2015] NZCA 606 and Inamata v R [2016] NZCA 115.
It remains to deal with their sentence appeals. Counsel have agreed these should be dealt with on the papers. The sentence appeal by the appellant Mr Inamata is out of time but we grant him an extension of time to appeal.

Background facts

We have set out the facts relating to this offending in previous judgments and it is unnecessary to repeat them in detail. What follows is a brief summary of the essential facts. The robbery was planned on the evening it occurred. Three members of the six in the group stole two motor vehicles which were used to travel to the tavern. The group were armed with a range of weapons including a loaded sawn-off shotgun. They were disguised with masks, balaclavas and other items of clothing. Plastic cable ties were taken to restrain any people who might be found at the tavern.
After waiting for the tavern to clear, the offenders burst inside, brandishing weapons. Three staff members were still present as were a small number of customers. A staff member managed to flee and call the police. Customers were ordered onto the floor and restrained with the cable ties. A staff member was unable to unlock the safe in the premises and was punched, kicked and his life threatened. Ultimately, his injuries required hospitalisation. Another staff member was threatened with a shotgun and money was taken from cash registers. A police chase ensued and four of the offenders were apprehended in circumstances described in our previous judgments. A fifth was later located and arrested while a sixth has never been charged.

The sentences imposed

Two of the offenders, Mr Tuku-Inamata and a man we will describe as XX, pleaded guilty and were sentenced by Ellis J on one charge of aggravated robbery.[2] Ellis J adopted a starting point of eight years in each case.
[2]R v Tuku-Inamata [2014] NZHC 2654 and R v N [2014] NZHC 2236.
The other three appellants, Mr Martin, Mr Wellington and Mr Inamata, pleaded…

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 Martin v R

Details

AGLC: Martin v The Queen [2016] NZCA 213
Case: [2016] NZCA 213
Decision Date: 19 May 2016 at 2:30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Martin v R, Bowen Conrad Martin, Trent Wellington, and Toka Inamata appealed against their sentences following convictions for their involvement in an armed robbery. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard the appeals and dismissed them, finding the sentences imposed were appropriate. The appellants were part of a group of six offenders who carried out the armed robbery of the Whitehouse Tavern in Papakura on 25 May 2013. The appellants were all found guilty of various charges, including aggravated robbery, kidnapping, threatening to kill, and car conversion.

The legal issues before the court were whether the starting points and discounts applied by the sentencing judge were appropriate. The appellants argued that the starting points and discounts were incorrect, and they should have been lower. The court found that the starting points were within range and the discounts applied were within the sentencing judge's discretion.

The court found that the starting points adopted by the sentencing judge were appropriate, taking into account the aggravating factors of the crime and the individual culpability of the appellants. The court also found that the discounts applied for youth and time spent on restrictive bail were within the sentencing judge's discretion and did not warrant interference. The sentences imposed on all three appellants were considered appropriate, and the appeals against sentence were dismissed.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed the appeals against sentence for the three appellants involved in the armed robbery of the Whitehouse Tavern in Papakura. The court found the starting points and discounts applied by the sentencing judge to be appropriate and within range, and the sentences imposed were considered suitable for the gravity of the offences committed.

Orders