R v Angelich - [2018] NZHC 2429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-090-2987

[2018] NZHC 2429

THE QUEEN

v

MARCO BOROTA ANGELICH

Hearing: 14 September 2018

Appearances:

B Northwood for the Crown G Newell for the Defendant

Judgment:

14 September 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland Counsel: G Newell, Auckland

R v ANGELICH [2018] NZHC 2429 [14 September 2018]

Introduction

[1] Mr Angelich, you appear today for sentence after having pleaded guilty to the following charges:

(a)One charge of aggravated burglary;1

(b)One charge of assault with a weapon;2 and

(c)Two charges of common assault, one of those being a representative charge.3

[2] The charge of aggravated burglary carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.4

[3] Mr Northwood, for the Crown, submits that the end sentence should be one of imprisonment.

[4] On your behalf, Mr Newell submits that a sentence of home detention may be available.

[5]I begin by outlining the facts of your offending.

Factual background

[6]Mr Angelich, you are a good friend of the victim’s older brother.

[7] The victim was 17 years of age at the time of the offending. A couple of weeks before the offending, he had told his family he was gay and he was in a relationship with an older male. He had recently moved out of the family home to live with his partner.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 232(1)(a).
2      Section 202C(1)(a). The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 196. The maximum penalty is one year’s imprisonment.
4      Section 232(1).

[8] At about 9:30 am on 6 June 2017, the victim returned to the family home in Ranui. As he was getting out of his vehicle, you ran up the driveway holding a knife in your hand. The knife was about 20 centimetres long.

[9] You first pushed the victim up against the garage door. The two of you then went inside the house. Once inside, you started to stab a picture frame belonging to the victim. You then started kicking and punching the victim, and threw him to the ground.

[10] You held the knife to the victim’s right wrist and told him to go back outside and to get into your vehicle. You continued to punch the victim while walking to the vehicle. The victim felt he had no choice but to get into your vehicle.

[11] Your accomplice was waiting in the vehicle. During the drive, you put on boxing gloves and you continued to punch the victim. You told him that you did not approve of his relationship, and that you were upset and mad that he was gay. You took the victim’s mobile phone and removed the sim card, putting it in your own mobile phone (I note that the victim’s mobile phone has since been returned to him).

[12] You drove over the Harbour Bridge to an unknown address on the North Shore. You, your accomplice and the victim went into the…

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 R v Angelich

Details

AGLC: R v Angelich [2018] NZHC 2429
Case: [2018] NZHC 2429
Decision Date: 14 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Angelich, heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Auckland, involved Marco Borota Angelich, who pleaded guilty to multiple charges including aggravated burglary, assault with a weapon, and common assault. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence that would reflect the severity of Angelich's crimes while also considering mitigating factors such as his early guilty pleas and participation in restorative justice. Angelich's crimes were marked by significant premeditation, use of a weapon, and a level of personal animosity, particularly evident in his attacks on the victim due to the victim's sexual orientation. The judge assessed the gravity of the crimes by comparing them with precedent cases and identified key aggravating factors such as home invasion, breach of trust, and the hate crime element. After evaluating personal circumstances, prior good character, and the extent of remorse shown, the court imposed a sentence of two years and eight months' imprisonment, with additional orders for the destruction of the weapon used in the crimes.

Orders