Legal Research
Cases
R v Hobson

R v Hobson

Case [2024] NZHC 1705 26 June 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

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-2022-004-8230

[2024] NZHC 1705

THE KING

v

FREDERICK GILBERT HOBSON SHANE HENRY TANE

Hearing: 26 June 2024

Appearances:

A McClintock for Crown

D Young and J Anderson for Frederick Hobson L Burns on behalf of I Tucker for Shane Tane

Sentence:

26 June 2024

SENTENCE OF MOORE J

Solicitors: MC, Auckland

R v HOBSON & TANE [2024] NZHC 1705 [26 June 2024]

[1] Frederick Hobson and Shane Tane, you both appear for sentence today for your involvement in the aggravated robbery of the Rose Cottage Superette in Sandringham and in your case, Mr Hobson, for the murder of Mr Janak Patel in the aftermath of that robbery.

[2] However, before I go on any further, I want to acknowledge Mr Patel’s family, friends and supporters who fill the public gallery of this large court room and I especially welcome you to the High Court.

[3] Your presence today in such numbers not only adds to the dignity and importance of what we are here to do but is also a fitting tribute to the memory of a fine family and community-minded man who needlessly and so tragically lost his life on that summer evening just over 19 months ago.

[4] I shall have more to say about Mr Patel later in these remarks. I will also have something to say about the hole that his death has left in so many lives, especially those of you who were closest to him. But for now, I just want to thank those who provided the Court with victim impact statements, and to acknowledge the courage it took to compose those and for the dignity of the tributes you pay, and for how Janak’s death has affected you.

[5] It is my intention to keep these sentencing remarks as brief and simple as I can. Where it is possible to avoid legal technical speak I shall do so. It is important for the victims of the offending as well as those who committed it to understand how I have arrived at the conclusion I have.

[6] But sentencing is quite a technical process and sentencing for murder is even more technical as you will see. And sometimes, it is simply not possible to record everything which the law requires without descending into what might seem to some of you to be a completely different language. For that I apologise in advance.

[7] Where I can, I shall footnote in my written decision the more technical aspects of my analysis of the caselaw and my reasons for coming to a particular conclusion so that the lawyers and the media, as the eyes and ears of the public are able to understand

why I have decided as I have. There is, however, no need for that sort of detail to clutter and distract from the essence of what I need to say publicly. A copy of these…

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 Hobson

Details

AGLC: R v Hobson [2024] NZHC 1705
Case: [2024] NZHC 1705
Decision Date: 26 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Auckland Registry, the case of R v Hobson involved Frederick Hobson and Shane Tane, who were sentenced for their involvement in an aggravated robbery at the Rose Cottage Superette in Sandringham, and in Hobson's case, for the murder of Janak Patel following the robbery. The court addressed several legal issues, including whether aggravating factors under section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 applied to Hobson's murder charge, and the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) for his murder sentence. The court found that while the murder occurred in the aftermath of the aggravated robbery, it did not meet the criteria for being committed "in the course of" the robbery. Additionally, the murder was not committed to avoid detection or subvert justice. Consequently, the court determined a starting point MPI of 16 years under section 103 of the Sentencing Act, adjusted for Hobson's personal circumstances, resulting in a final MPI of 15 years.

Regarding the aggravated robbery charge for both defendants, the court adopted a six-year starting point based on the premeditated nature of the crime, the use of a weapon, and the substantial harm caused. Hobson received a sentence of four years and six months for the aggravated robbery, considering his previous convictions and mitigating factors. Tane, on the other hand, received a sentence of four years and six months for the aggravated robbery, with adjustments made for his guilty plea and expressions of remorse, despite discrepancies in his account of the events.

Orders