R v Laumemea - [2012] NZHC 651

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2006-031-001553 [2012] NZHC 651

THE QUEEN

v

SOLA LANCE LAUMEMEA

Hearing: 28 March 2012

Counsel: E Killeen for the Crown
P Surridge for the Prisoner

Judgment: 28 March 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF ASHER J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, PO Box 31, Palmerston North 4440. Email: esme@bvalaw.co.nz
Surridge & Co, PO Box 50525, Porirua 5240. Email: paulsurridge@xtra.co.nz

R V LAUMEMEA HC PMN CRI-2006-031-001553 [28 March 2012]

[1] Mr Laumemea, you appear for sentence today on three very serious charges. They are burglary, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years’ imprisonment, robbery also 10 years’ imprisonment and aggravated wounding where the maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment. You were found guilty after a jury trial in this Court in February 2012.

[2] The complainant was 66 years old and on 7 November 2006 at about 9.30 pm was alone in bed in his house in Levin. He heard his dog growling. This continued for some time and then looking up he saw someone standing in the hallway by his bedroom door. He could not see very clearly because he was not wearing his glasses. He told the person to leave as he got out of his bed and approached the person. As he went towards the hallway he was hit in the face and fell to the floor. While on the floor a sheet or a similar item was thrown over him. A foot was placed on his head and a person demanded, “Where’s the money old man?”

[3] After being held there for a while he managed to get up and go into the hallway and throw a brick at one of the intruders. He was then grabbed and thrown to the ground again. An ornamental axe was removed from the wall and he was hit on the head with it. The force of the blows were such that the axe broke into pieces. I add that this was a wooden axe of relatively light construction. Demands were made for his car keys and other items. At this stage he was being kicked around the torso by the intruders.

[4] There were clearly two or more people present. The complainant heard one of them say, “Take it easy, you’ll kill him.” There were demands, not only for the keys to the car, but for the keys to the briefcase. When the complainant was asked how many times he would have been kicked he responded, “Enough to crack a hip and have to get a replacement and broken ribs, that’s about it.”

[5] At some stage the complainant lost consciousness. When he regained consciousness he was covered in blood. He managed to get up and go to a nearby house and he received neighbourly assistance. Eventually he was taken to hospital. He received stitches for a long wound to his scalp. He was severely bruised in his

face and around his body. He suffered damage to his ribs and as…

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 Laumemea

Details

AGLC: R v Laumemea [2012] NZHC 651
Case: [2012] NZHC 651
Decision Date: 28 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Sola Lance Laumemea appeared for sentencing on charges of burglary, robbery, and aggravated wounding. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence, taking into account the seriousness of the crimes and the offender's culpability. The court found the offender guilty after a jury trial and assessed the various aggravating factors present in the case. These included extreme violence, the use of a weapon, multiple attackers, and home invasion. The offender had a significant criminal history, with 74 convictions, including violent and dishonest acts. Despite this, the court acknowledged the possibility of rehabilitation, considering the offender's recent positive life changes and family commitments. The court ultimately decided on a sentence of 10 and a half years' imprisonment, with no minimum term imposed. The sentences for burglary and robbery were to run concurrently with the aggravated wounding sentence.

The court emphasised the gravity of the offender's actions and the significant impact on the victim, who suffered severe physical and psychological harm. The judge encouraged the offender to make positive choices upon release and warned of the potential consequences of failing to reform.

Orders