R v Carr - [2019] NZHC 2335

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-004-003875

[2019] NZHC 2335

THE QUEEN

v

IVAN DOUGLAS CARR STEVEN GEORGE ANDERSON

Hearing: 17 September 2019

Counsel:

DME Wiseman for Crown

H Smith on instruction for RM Mansfield for Defendants

Judgment:

17 September 2019

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland. RM Mansfield, Auckland. H Smith, Auckland.

R v CARR & ANDERSON [2019] NZHC 2335 [17 September 2019]

Preliminary matters

[1] Two preliminary matters first. Mr Mansfield is ill. But, as I have said to those here this morning, I have read his helpful submissions—plural—and all the material he has prepared for the two of you. For this reason, I shall continue to refer to Mr Mansfield’s submissions even though Mr Smith, his junior at trial, is here today and has addressed me orally. Second, I acknowledge the presence of family and whanau, and the Officer-in-Charge.

Introduction

[2] Now, sentencing itself. Mr Carr, you are for sentence on a host of serious charges: four of aggravated robbery; two of robbery; five for unlawful using or taking a car; two of dishonest use of a document; one of demanding with menaces; one aggravated assault; and two thefts. The most serious are the aggravated robbery charges. Each carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. Aggravated robbery is your signature offence.

[3] You committed some of the offences with others, hence the presence of Mr Anderson. You, Mr Anderson, are for sentence on two charges of robbery; and one of aggravated assault. The maximum penalty for robbery is 10 years’ imprisonment.

[4] Another offender, Mr Hutchinson, will be sentenced in the next month or so. A disputed facts hearing is required in relation to him.

Facts

[5] I begin with events in relation to you Mr Carr. At approximately 12.30 am on 12 October 2017, you and another unidentified man stopped next to a parked BMW in Hillcrest. The victim was in the car talking to his mother on the telephone. He had parked just outside his home. You were both wearing masks. Either you or the other man confronted the victim with a hammer. A demand was made for the victim’s phone, wallet and keys. The victim asked if he could first remove his lecture notes. They were of great value to him—but none to you. His request was declined. Either you or

the other man dragged the victim out of his car. You and the other man then drove the BMW away. You took the victim’s wallet and phone. They were worth $2,400. He did not get these back.

[6] I move forward 18 days to 30 October 2017. Mr Carr, you and an unidentified offender went to a shopping centre in Glen Eden. At approximately 2.30 that afternoon, you robbed an Armourguard cash van at gunpoint. You were the gunman. The Armourguard employee ran away, and around a corner. You chased him. You told him to drop 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 Carr

Details

AGLC: R v Carr [2019] NZHC 2335
Case: [2019] NZHC 2335
Decision Date: 17 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ivan Douglas Carr and Steven George Anderson were before the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing. Mr Carr was being sentenced for multiple charges including aggravated robbery, robbery, unlawful taking or use of a car, dishonest use of a document, demanding with menaces, aggravated assault, and theft. Mr Anderson was being sentenced for robbery, aggravated assault, and another charge. The court considered several legal issues including the starting point for sentencing, the operation of the totality principle, and whether any mitigating factors should apply. The court found that both offenders had extensive criminal histories and had committed serious offences that involved premeditation, violence, and targeting vulnerable victims. The court declined to apply any discounts for the offenders' cultural backgrounds or difficult upbringings, finding that their serious offending warranted little if any reduction. The court sentenced Mr Carr to 16 years imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 8 years, and sentenced Mr Anderson to 5 years and 10 months imprisonment with no non-parole period due to the nature of his offences. The court emphasized that while the offenders came from disadvantaged backgrounds, this did not excuse their very serious criminal conduct.

Orders