R v Inamata - [2015] NZHC 284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2013-055-001321 [2015] NZHC 284

THE QUEEN

v

TOKA INAMATA

Hearing: 23 February 2015

Appearances:

L Mills for the Crown
P Hamlin for the Defendant

Date:

23 February 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J

R v INAMATA [2015] NZHC 284 [23 February 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mr Inamata, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand.

[2] You appear for sentence today, having been found guilty by a jury of a number of charges arising out of the aggravated robbery of the Whitehouse Tavern in Papakura in May 2013. You were not present during the trial because you breached your bail and you were on the run. Nevertheless, it proceeded in your absence.

[3] You have been found guilty of the following:

(a) One charge of aggravated robbery. That is an offence pursuant to s 235(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.

(b)Five charges of kidnapping. Kidnapping is an offence pursuant to s 209(b) of the Act. The maximum penalty is one of 14 years’ imprisonment on each charge.

(c) Two charges of threatening to kill. This is an offence pursuant to s 306 of the Act, and the maximum penalty is one of seven years’ imprisonment on each charge.

(d)Two charges of conversion. This is an offence pursuant to s 226(1)(b) of the Act and the maximum penalty is one of seven years’ imprisonment, again on each charge.

(e) One charge of aggravated injury. This is an offence pursuant to s 191(2) of the Act and the maximum penalty is one of three years’ imprisonment.

(f) One charge of the unlawful possession of explosives. This is an offence pursuant to the s 51 of the Arms Act 1983 and the maximum penalty is three years’ imprisonment.

Background Facts

[4] On the afternoon of 25 May 2013, you along with five others, met at an address in Manurewa. At that meeting, the six of you discussed robbing the Whitehouse Tavern. Three members of the group then set out to Remuera to steal two motor vehicles to use as transport in the robbery. When the members of the group returned to Manurewa with the stolen vehicles, you armed yourself with a range of weapons, including a loaded sawn-off pump-action shotgun, a crowbar, large screwdrivers and a large drill bit. You put on heavy clothing, including hooded sweatshirts, and caps. You took face masks and balaclavas with you and also some plastic cable ties that you could use to restrain any people you might find at the tavern.

[5] You then travelled to the tavern in the two stolen vehicles. When you arrived, the tavern was crowded, because there was a quiz evening on. You spent some time waiting in the car park until the tavern cleared. At approximately
10.45 pm, you burst into the tavern brandishing your weapons. You were all wearing masks or balaclavas to conceal your identities.

[6] There were three staff present,…

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 Inamata

Details

AGLC: R v Inamata [2015] NZHC 284
Case: [2015] NZHC 284
Decision Date: 23 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Toka Inamata has been sentenced by Wylie J of the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, following his conviction for aggravated robbery, five counts of kidnapping, two counts of threatening to kill, two counts of conversion, one count of aggravated injury, and one count of unlawful possession of explosives. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the principles and purposes of sentencing, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The court found that the defendant's offending was marked by premeditation, the involvement of multiple offenders, the use of disguises and weapons, the number of victims, the use of violence, and the degree of harm caused to the victims. The court also considered the defendant's previous convictions and his efforts to turn his life around while on remand.

The court took into account the relevant tariff case of R v Mako and other similar cases to determine an appropriate starting point for the defendant's sentence. The court adopted a starting point of nine years' imprisonment, acknowledging the defendant's increased culpability due to his role as the leader of the criminal enterprise and the additional charge of unlawful possession of explosives. The court declined to apply any uplift or reduction for personal factors, as it found that the defendant's offending made a mockery of his claims of community involvement and his desire to turn his life around.

The final sentence imposed by the court was a term of imprisonment of nine years for the aggravated robbery charge, four years for the five counts of kidnapping, two years for each of the two counts of threatening to kill, one year for each of the two counts of conversion, two years for the charge of aggravated injury, and one year for the charge of unlawful possession of explosives. All of these sentences were to be served concurrently. The court also cancelled the defendant's existing sentence of community work.

Orders