R v Keremete - [2024] NZHC 817

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-009-002787

[2024] NZHC 817

THE KING

v

JUSTIN WIREMU KEREMETE

Hearing: 15 April 2024

Appearances:

S J Mallett for Crown

P H B Hall KC for Defendant

Sentencing remarks:

15 April 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF EATON J

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

R v KEREMETE [2024] NZHC 817 [15 April 2024]

Introduction

[1] Justin Wiremu Keremete, you appear for sentence, having pleaded guilty to five charges of aggravated robbery,1 a charge of aggravated burglary,2 a charge of unlawfully taking an e-bike3 and a charge of breaching release conditions.4 Those guilty pleas were entered on 17 May 2023.

[2] On 5 February 2024 the District Court declined jurisdiction and remanded you for sentence in this Court following the Crown’s indication that a sentence of preventive detention was sought.5

Offending summarised

[3]It is necessary that I summarise your offending.

[4] On the afternoon of 14 March 2023, you went to Electrify NZ, an electric bike shop in Lichfield Street in Christchurch. After engaging with staff, you asked to drive an e-bike having provided personal details and photographic identification. You left the store with an electric mountain bike valued at $11,499. You did not return the bike to the store. It has never been located.

[5] On 11:05 am on 25 March 2023, you committed the first of the five aggravated robberies. Travelling by bicycle you went to the premises of Paper Tree, a combined book shop, Kiwibank branch and NZ Post Shop on St Martins Road in Christchurch.

[6] On entering the store, you removed your bike helmet and hat, but left a face covering in place. You leant on the counter and presented what is described as a small pistol. You demanded money from the till, threatening you would fire the gun. You continued to threaten the teller and pulled out a small hatchet and advanced around to the staff side of the counter before returning to the customer side, at which stage the teller cooperated with your demands. The till was opened, and you told the teller to

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 235(c) — maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 232(1)(a) — maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 226(1) — maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Parole Act 2002, s 71(1) — maximum penalty of one year imprisonment.
5      R v Keremete DC Christchurch CRI-2023-009-002787, 6 February 2024.

empty it and hand you the money. You walked around behind the counter and emptied the till. You left the store on your bike taking a total of $1,495.

[7] Four days later, on 29 March 2023, you went to Travelex, a currency exchange agency in the Westfield Mall in Riccarton, Christchurch. You approached the lone teller. You were asked what currency you were after and in response you said: “I need…

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 Keremete

Details

AGLC: R v Keremete [2024] NZHC 817
Case: [2024] NZHC 817
Decision Date: 15 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Keremete, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, involves the sentencing of Justin Wiremu Keremete on multiple charges including aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, unlawfully taking an e-bike, and breaching release conditions. Keremete had previously been sentenced to preventive detention in 2003 for similar offences. The court had to decide whether to impose a second sentence of preventive detention or to impose a finite sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment. The legal issues centered on the principles and purposes of sentencing, the appropriateness of a second preventive detention sentence, and the risk Keremete posed to the community.

The court concluded that while Keremete met the criteria for a second preventive detention sentence, it was not necessary. The finite sentence imposed, which included a lengthy term of imprisonment and a significant minimum period before parole eligibility, was deemed sufficient to protect the public. The court considered Keremete's extensive criminal history, the seriousness of his recent offences, and the risk assessments provided by clinical psychologists. Despite the high risk of re-offending, the court found that the finite sentence, combined with the existing preventive detention sentence, provided adequate protection to the community. The court also imposed a firearms prohibition order due to the risk Keremete posed in accessing firearms.

Orders