R v Brown-Martin - [2022] NZHC 2805

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2020-088-3220

[2022] NZHC 2805

THE KING

v

CAYNE BROWN-MARTIN BILLY-JOE IHIPARA WITEHIRA

Hearing: 27 October 2022

Appearances:

A Tupuola for the Crown

D Blaikie for Defendant Brown-Martin W McKean for Defendant Witehira

Judgment:

27 October 2022

(REDACTED AND ANONYMISED) SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei D Blaikie, Kaikohe
WRMK Lawyers, Whangarei

R v BROWN-MARTIN [2022] NZHC 2805 [27 October 2022]

Introduction

[1] Cayne Brown-Martin, you appear before me for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge arising out of your demand for payment from the victim and other related charges including firearms charges. Billy-Joe Witehira, you are also for sentence. You have pleaded guilty to firearms charges.

The offending

[2] In entering your guilty pleas, you both accepted the contents of the summary of facts.

[3] The two of you were partners at the time. The victim was an acquaintance of yours. In early November 2020, he had left his welding equipment at the address of Corey O’Connell after a disagreement between the two of them. On 29 November 2020, the victim drove to the Paihia address where the two of you were staying. You both got into his vehicle and took possession of a homemade .22 pistol. The three of you then drove to Mr O’Connell’s address.

[4] Mr Brown-Martin, you and the victim went into a shipping container on Mr O’Connell’s property. Ms Witehira, you stayed in the car. The victim was sat down in a chair and threats were made. Mr O’Connell punched the victim in the head several times. Mr O’Connell was convicted and sentenced earlier this year for his part in this offending.1 There is a dispute as to the circumstances and explanations for the assault but it is accepted that the altercation revolved around criminal activities.

[5] At about 8.30 pm, the two of you drove the victim in his car from Mr O’Connell’s address back to where you were staying. On the drive, you, Mr Brown-Martin, demanded payment from the victim. These demands were accompanied by threats of violence. Mr Brown-Martin, you say that the victim had agreed to pay you the sum of $2,500 in return for your help in recovering his engineering equipment. You say there was an argument over the payment of this fee. However, those matters are not recorded in the agreed summary of facts. In any event,

1 R v O’Connell [2022] NZHC 1256.

you accept you demanded payment in a threatening and overbearing manner. At one point, the victim jumped from the moving car and received minor injuries from his fall. The demands continued and the victim agreed to pay a fee. The three of you returned to your motel, consumed methamphetamine and things seemed to calm down.

[6] As part of the demands, Mr Brown-Martin, you arranged for the victim’s vehicle to be sold to an associate for two grams of methamphetamine and $1,000. 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 Brown-Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Brown-Martin [2022] NZHC 2805
Case: [2022] NZHC 2805
Decision Date: 27 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Gordon J sentenced Cayne Brown-Martin and Billy-Joe Witehira for their respective roles in a series of serious criminal offences, including demanding with menaces, unlawful possession of firearms, and dangerous driving. The case arose from a sequence of events where the defendants, along with a third party, Corey O’Connell, assaulted a victim, stole his vehicle, and made demands for payment under threats of violence. Brown-Martin pleaded guilty to demanding with menaces, unlawful possession of a firearm and a pistol, and dangerous driving under the influence. Witehira pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm and a pistol, as well as unlawful discharge of a firearm. The court had to determine the appropriate starting points for sentencing based on the nature and seriousness of the offences, and then adjust these starting points in light of the defendants' personal circumstances and any mitigating factors.

The court considered the defendants' personal backgrounds, their criminal histories, and the impact of their offending on the victim. For Brown-Martin, the court found several aggravating factors, including the premeditated nature of the demands, the threats made while the victim was in his own vehicle, and the length of time the victim was controlled. The court set a starting point of two and a half years for the demanding with menaces charge and added an uplift of one year for the other charges, resulting in a total starting point of three and a half years. After applying discounts for personal mitigating factors and the defendants' early guilty pleas, the court sentenced Brown-Martin to two years and eight months in prison. Witehira, who played a secondary role, received a starting point of 14 months, which was reduced to five weeks of home detention after accounting for her personal circumstances and the time already spent on bail.

In summary, the court imposed a sentence of two years and eight months imprisonment for Brown-Martin and five weeks of home detention for Witehira, reflecting the seriousness of their offences and the mitigating factors considered in the sentencing process. The court also ordered the forfeiture of the firearms and ammunition involved in the offending.

Orders