R v Hewitt - [2017] NZHC 1220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-044-2834 [2017] NZHC 1220

THE QUEEN

v

BRONSON HEWITT

Hearing: 6 June 2017

Appearances:

H G Clark for the Crown
A C Cresswell on instruction from G Ghahraman for the
Prisoner

Sentence:

6 June 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF MUIR J

Counsel;Solicitors:

H G Clark, Meredith Connell, Auckland
G Ghahraman, Barrister, Auckland
A C Cresswell, Public Defence Service, Manukau

R v HEWITT [2017] NZHC 1220 [6 June 2017]

Introduction

[1] Following a trial by jury Mr Hewitt was found guilty on 13 March 2017 of six charges:

(a) kidnapping;1

(b) aggravated robbery;2

(c) male assaults female;3

(d) unlawfully taking a motor vehicle;4

(e) assault with intent to rob;5 and

(f) demanding with menaces.6

[2] He received a first strike warning under the three strikes regime and now appears for sentence.7

Facts

[3] The offending occurred in the course of a single day, namely 4 August 2015. There were two incidents and two victims. The Crown has summarised the facts as it considers them to have been established at trial. The defence does not take any
significant issue with that summary.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 209(b).    This offence carries a maximum sentence of 14 years’
imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, s 235(c). This offence carries a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, s 194(b). This offence carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act, s 226(1)(a).    This offence carries a maximum sentence of seven years’
imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act, s 236(1)(b). This offence carries a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.
Mr Hewitt was originally charged with assault with intent to injure under s 193 of the Crimes Act, but the Crown was granted leave in the course of the trial to amend this charge to assault with intent to rob.
6      Crimes Act, s 239(2). This offence carries a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment.
Mr Hewitt was originally charged with aggravated robbery under s 235(c) of the Crimes Act, but the Crown was granted leave in the course of the trial to amend this charge to demanding with menaces.
7      Sentencing Act 2002, s 86B.

[4] On the afternoon of 4 August, Ms Watson was seated in her BMW car at an intersection in Glenfield. Mr Hewitt was a passenger in the vehicle in front of Ms Watson. He left the vehicle, opened Ms Watson’s passenger door and got into it. When Ms Watson asked him what he was doing, he told her to shut up and asked where her money and gold was. She gave him her handbag, the contents of which Mr Hewitt emptied onto the floor of the car. When she tried to use her cellphone, Mr Hewitt grabbed it from her.

[5] Mr Hewitt forced Ms Watson to continue driving, holding her forcefully by the hair and tilting her head back so that she could not see properly. He also ran a fishing knife up and down her arm while she…

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 Hewitt

Details

AGLC: R v Hewitt [2017] NZHC 1220
Case: [2017] NZHC 1220
Decision Date: 6 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Bronson Hewitt was sentenced on six charges stemming from two separate incidents of violence and theft that occurred on 4 August 2015. Hewitt was found guilty of kidnapping, aggravated robbery, male assaults female, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, assault with intent to rob, and demanding with menaces. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for Hewitt, taking into account the totality of his offending and his extensive criminal history. The Crown argued for a sentence of nine to nine-and-a-half years' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent, while defence counsel argued for a sentence in the range of seven to eight years' imprisonment.

The court decided that a concurrent approach to sentencing was appropriate, with the most serious offence, aggravated robbery, receiving the penalty that was appropriate for the totality of the offending. The court identified a starting point of five years and nine months' imprisonment for the offending against the first victim, and an uplift of two years and three months' imprisonment for the offending against the second victim, resulting in an overall starting point of eight years' imprisonment. The court decided not to impose a minimum period of imprisonment, as it considered the sentence sufficient to hold Hewitt accountable for his actions and deter others from similar criminality. Hewitt was sentenced to eight years and six months' imprisonment for aggravated robbery, and concurrent sentences for the remaining convictions, to be served concurrently. The court also made an order for the destruction of the weapons and drug paraphernalia used in the offending.

Orders