Legal Research
Cases
Purua-King v R

Purua-King v R

Case [2019] NZHC 1698 19 July 2019

Sentencing

Jurisdiction

Personal Circumstances

Systemic Deprivation

Three Strikes Legislation

Criminal Law

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-2019-404-000189

[2019] NZHC 1698

BETWEEN
KENI PURUA-KING

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 15 July 2019

Appearances:

N Chisnall for the Appellant

B Charmley for the Respondent

Judgment:

19 July 2019

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 19 July 2019 at 10:00 am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington Counsel: N P Chisnall, Auckland

PURUA-KING v R [2019] NZHC 1698 [19 July 2019]

[1] Following a sentence indication given by Judge T V Clark on 3 December 2018, Keni Purua-King pleaded guilty to one charge of unlawful taking of a motor vehicle and one charge of aggravated robbery.1 On 21 March 2019, the Judge sentenced Mr Purua-King to two years and nine months’ imprisonment.

[2] The appellant’s conviction for aggravated robbery was a stage-2 offence for the purposes of the three strikes legislation and he is therefore required to serve his sentence without parole in accordance with s 86C(4)(a) of the Sentencing Act 2002. He now appeals against sentence.2

Summary of facts

[3] On Saturday 4 August 2018, at a point in time between 4.30 pm and midnight, a Subaru Impreza motor vehicle (“the stolen vehicle”) was stolen from an address in Manurewa.

[4] On Monday 6 August 2018, Mr Purua-King and Hiria Thompson-Moka were seen driving the stolen vehicle in Papakura. They picked up a third person, Angel- Breeze Paul.

[5] While driving around in the stolen vehicle, Mr Purua-King and his two associates decided to commit an aggravated robbery. They each took measures to conceal their identities. At about 2.50 pm that day, Mr Purua-King drove to the Kingseat Dairy and Takeaway shop (“the dairy”) in the stolen vehicle and parked it nearby beside a bus stop.

[6] At that time, Lovejit Kaur was working behind the counter of the dairy. She was serving a single customer, who had his young daughter with him in the store. Ms Kaur received a telephone call from a neighbour advising her that three persons were walking toward the store. Ms Kaur and the customer went and stood by the door to see what was happening.

1 Contrary to ss 235 and 226 Crimes Act 1961. Maximum penalties 14 years’ imprisonment and seven years’ imprisonment, respectively.
2 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 244-252.

[7] Ms Thompson-Moka, with her face concealed, approached Ms Kaur with a knife. She demanded that Ms Kaur give her cash. Ms Kaur stepped back and allowed Ms Thompson-Moka to enter the store. Ms Kaur and the customer walked into the store behind Ms Thompson-Moka and stood to the side while she went behind the counter area. She went to the till, ripped it out, and put it on the ice cream freezer. At this time, Mr Purua-King and Ms Paul entered the store. Ms Paul walked behind the counter area and, along with Ms Thompson-Moka, set about uplifting cash and cigarettes and…

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 Purua-King v R

Details

AGLC: Purua-King v R [2019] NZHC 1698
Case: [2019] NZHC 1698
Decision Date: 19 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Keni Purua-King appealed against his sentence for unlawful taking of a motor vehicle and aggravated robbery. The appellant was sentenced to two years and nine months’ imprisonment. The appellant’s conviction for aggravated robbery was a stage-2 offence for the purposes of the three strikes legislation and he is therefore required to serve his sentence without parole. The appellant submitted that the judge made material errors and a different sentence should have been imposed. The central focus on appeal was whether the judge made adequate allowance for the appellant’s personal circumstances, specifically the interplay of his youth and cultural background. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the judge failed to properly grapple with the influence that the appellant’s background and upbringing had on his offending. The appellant further submitted that there is another justification for reduction of his sentence on appeal. This is that a reasonably minded observer aware of all the circumstances of the offence and the three offenders would think something had gone wrong with the administration of justice, given that the appellant must serve his entire sentence without parole, whereas it is very likely that his co-defendants will not. The court held that the appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court found that the judge was not wrong when she said that the appellant’s situation was slightly different in that he did have a whānau who loved him and supported him. The court held that the contrast between the appellant’s upbringing and that of the co-defendant’s, and in turn their offending, justified the judge’s discount for personal circumstances. The court held that the appellant’s sentence, while harsh, was not out of kilter with the result in respect of an offender who is not subject to the three strikes regime.

Orders