Newton v The Queen

Case [2021] NZHC 3370


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2021-412-000041

[2021] NZHC 3370

BETWEEN

NICHOLAS JAMES NEWTON

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 7 December 2021

Appearances:

S A Saunderson-Warner for Appellant C J Bernhardt for Respondent

Judgment:

9 December 2021


JUDGMENT OF EATON J


This judgment was delivered by me on  at           pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

NEWTON v R [2021] NZHC 3370 [9 December 2021]

Introduction

[1]    The appellant, Nicholas Newton, was sentenced by Judge Turner to three years and one months’ imprisonment on charges of aggravated robbery,1 possession of a firearm,2 and unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle.3 He appeals against that sentence on the ground it was manifestly excessive.

Background

[2]    At around 9.45 pm on 23 March 2020, Mr Newton and his two co-offenders were in a stolen vehicle. They drove to a Z petrol station and parked directly outside the automatic doors. At the time, there was a sole attendant working inside the store.

[3]    Mr Newton was heavily disguised with his hood up, sunglasses and gloves on. He entered the service station while his co-offender, who was also heavily disguised, positioned himself between the automatic doors to prevent them from closing. The third co-offender remained in the vehicle.

[4]    As he entered the service station, Mr Newton was holding a sawn-off shotgun. He approached the counter and raised the firearm, pointing it at the attendant as he told him to put cash and tobacco into a bag provided.

[5]    Mr Newton and his co-offenders fled the shop with approximately $200 cash and 17-20 pouches of tobacco. This offending resulted in the charges of aggravated burglary and unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle.

[6]    At around 10.30 pm on 2 April 2020, Mr Newton was dropped on the street at the entrance to the Dunedin public hospital by his co-offenders who were driving a stolen vehicle. Mr Newton had a shotgun wound to his chest area. He told hospital staff he had been getting the shotgun out of the boot of a car when the gun had gone off, injuring him.


1      Crimes Act 1961, s 235; maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

2      Arms Act 1983, s 51; maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.

3      Crimes Act, s 226; maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.

[7]    Mr Newton’s co-offenders fled the hospital at speed, driving through a red traffic light. The vehicle collided with a large passenger bus as it was travelling through the intersection causing extensive damage to both vehicles.

[8]    The offenders fled with the loaded sawn-off shotgun. It was thrown onto the roof of a nearby building, where it was later recovered by police. Mr Newton was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm.

District Court decision

[9]    The District Court Judge adopted a starting point of five years’ imprisonment on the charges of aggravated robbery and unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle,4 referring to the guideline decision…

Continue reading Newton v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Newton v The Queen [2021] NZHC 3370
Case
[2021] NZHC 3370
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Nicholas Newton, appealed against his sentence for aggravated robbery, possession of a firearm, and unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle. The District Court had imposed a sentence of three years and one month's imprisonment. The sole issue on appeal was whether the uplift of 14 months for the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm was excessive. The appellant argued the uplift was excessive and should have been no more than six months. The Crown accepted the uplift could have been lower but submitted the sentence was not manifestly excessive due to the generous credits applied. The Court found the 14 month uplift was excessive and substituted a sentence of nine months' imprisonment for the firearms charge. The Court found the overall sentence was manifestly excessive and substituted a sentence of two years and nine months' imprisonment for the aggravated robbery charge.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.