Mata v R - [2012] NZCA 593

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA782/2011
[2012] NZCA 593

BETWEEN OIRERUA MATA
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

CA813/2011

AND BETWEEN LIONEL MANAAKI TE KANAWA
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

CA812/2011

AND BETWEEN ALEC WINTERSTEIN
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 20 November 2012

Court: Wild, Chisholm and Courtney JJ

Counsel: W N Dollimore for Appellant Mata
H D M Lawry for Appellant Te Kanawa
P H H Tomlinson for Appellant Winterstein
K Raftery for Respondent

Judgment: 17 December 2012 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeals are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

Introduction

Alec Winterstein, Oirerua Mata, Lionel Te Kanawa and Sionatane Lea’aumanu were party to the unlawful taking of two motor vehicles and subsequent aggravated robbery of Armourguard officers at the ANZ Bank in Huntly on 3 November 2009. All four men participated in the robbery, which was timed to coincide with two Armourguard officers replacing ATM cash canisters inside the bank. The vehicles, which were used as getaway cars, had been taken in the week leading up to the robbery, one by Mr Lea’aumanu, the other by Mr Lea’aumanu and Mr Winterstein together.
While Mr Lea’aumanu waited in one of the stolen vehicles, Mr Winterstein, Mr Te Kanawa and Mr Mata went into the bank. Their faces and heads were covered. One of them pointed a firearm at an Armourguard officer. They took cash canisters containing $20,190 and drove away at high speed. Shortly afterwards they swapped cars to avoid detection and discarded the clothing worn during the robbery. One drove a vehicle owned by Mr Winterstein’s sister. The remaining three used the other stolen vehicle. After a short time the stolen car was abandoned and all four continued on in the legitimate vehicle. The Police sighted them within 13 minutes of the robbery. They were followed to Spring Hill prison and apprehended in the carpark. By that time they no longer had the cash and firearm. Neither has been recovered.
Mr Lea’aumanu pleaded guilty before trial and was sentenced by Judge Marshall to five years and 11 months’ imprisonment.[1] The other three, who are the appellants in this case, were convicted following a jury trial at the District Court in Hamilton before Judge Burnett. After a disputed facts hearing, Mr Winterstein was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment and Mr Te Kanawa and Mr Mata each sentenced to eight and a half years’ imprisonment.[2] Minimum periods of imprisonment of 50 per cent were imposed on each appellant. In addition, each was disqualified from driving for three years and ordered to pay $5,000 reparation on his release.
[1] R v Lea’aumanu DC Hamilton CRI-2009-092-20934, 14 February 2011.
[2] R v Winterstein DC Hamilton CRI-2009-092-20934, 28 October 2011 [sentencing decision].
Mr Winterstein,[3] Mr Te Kanawa and Mr Mata appeal their sentences[4] on the ground that they are manifestly excessive because:
(a)the starting points adopted were too high in comparison with the starting point taken for Mr Lea’aumanu;
(b)there was no…

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 Mata v R

Details

AGLC: Mata v R [2012] NZCA 593
Case: [2012] NZCA 593
Decision Date: 17 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Mata v R was brought by three co-offenders, Alec Winterstein, Oirerua Mata, and Lionel Te Kanawa, against their sentences for their involvement in the aggravated robbery of two Armourguard officers at an ANZ Bank in Huntly on 3 November 2009. Their co-offender, Sionatane Lea’aumanu, had previously pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years and 11 months’ imprisonment. The appellants were convicted in a jury trial at the District Court in Hamilton and sentenced to between eight and eight and a half years’ imprisonment. They appealed on the grounds that their sentences were manifestly excessive because of the starting points adopted, the uplift for gang-related offending, the minimum periods of imprisonment imposed, the orders for reparation, and the orders for disqualification.

The court found that the starting points adopted were within the appropriate range and that there was no justification for interfering with the sentence on the basis of too high a starting point. The court also found that the uplift of 12 months imposed to reflect the gang-related aspect of the offending was justified. The court further found that the imposition of the minimum term was justified in the case of Mr Winterstein, as the offence was very serious gang-related offending that called for a level of denunciation and deterrence requiring an MPI. The court also found that the orders for reparation were not objectionable as the appellants had received some of the stolen cash. Finally, the court found that the orders for disqualification were of doubtful utility, but given that some 13 months of the disqualification period had already elapsed, the court would not interfere with it.

As none of the appellants' grounds had succeeded, their appeals were dismissed. The court upheld the sentences imposed by the District Court in Hamilton.

Orders