R v Lawrie - [2017] NZHC 781

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2017-404-029 [2017] NZHC 781

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND

JAMES LAWRIE Respondent

Hearing: 10 and 26 April 2017

Appearances:

Z R Johnstone for the Appellant
P I Pati for the Respondent

Judgment:

26 April 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Z R Johnstone, Crown Solicitors, Auckland
P Pati, Public Defence Service, Manukau

THE QUEEN v LAWRIE [2017] NZHC 781 [26 April 2017]

Summary

[1] The respondent, James Lawrie, pleaded guilty to 12 aggravated robberies and

three assaults with intent to rob. He was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment on 21

December 2016.

[2] The Crown now appeals against Mr Lawrie’s sentence on the basis that it is

manifestly inadequate and wrong in principle.

Background

Facts

[3] Mr Lawrie’s offending took place between 30 May 2016 and 28 July 2016, a period of almost two months. There were 15 discrete incidents, which resulted in 12 charges of aggravated robbery1 and three charges of assault with intent to rob.2

[4] Each aggravated robbery followed a similar pattern. Mr Lawrie targeted service stations and dairies (and on one occasion a motel), and operated alone. Armed with a weapon, sometimes at night, he approached the counter and demanded cash and cigarettes from the person serving. In seven of the aggravated robberies, he was armed with a small knife. In five, he was armed with an imitation pistol which each of the victims thought was real. On most occasions he also took with him a black bag in which he put the items he stole. After each robbery, he ran from the store to his vehicle and left the area.

[5] There was actual physical violence involved on two occasions. On the first occasion, Mr Thakar of Othello Superette chased Mr Lawrie out of the store with a broom, whereupon Mr Lawrie turned around and lunged at him, cutting both his hands with the knife he was carrying. Mr Thakar received minor lacerations to his hands as a result. On the second and more serious occasion, Mr Mistry of Poonan Dairy grabbed hold of the bag in which Mr Lawrie was putting money and
cigarettes. Mr Lawrie tackled him to the ground and punched him approximately 20

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 235(c). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 236(1)(b). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’
imprisonment.

times about the head and body. Mr Mistry received a haemorrhage to the left eye, swelling around the nasal bridge and damage to his upper incisor tooth which resulted in him subsequently losing that tooth.

[6] The other victims report ongoing emotional harm. Some thought they were going to die during the robbery; some now have difficulty sleeping and are more apprehensive at work as a result. In terms of the quantum of property stolen, police estimate that across all 12 of these robberies, Mr Lawrie took property worth a total of $30,245.19.

[7] The three…

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 Lawrie

Details

AGLC: R v Lawrie [2017] NZHC 781
Case: [2017] NZHC 781
Decision Date: 26 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this appeal, the Crown challenged the sentence of six years’ imprisonment imposed on James Lawrie, who had pleaded guilty to 12 counts of aggravated robbery and three counts of assault with intent to rob. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and wrong in principle. The appeal was heard by Muir J in the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland. The Crown submitted that the starting point of 12 years was inadequate to reflect the totality of the offending. The Court accepted that the starting point of six years for each of the 15 offences was too low and that the offending was significantly more serious than comparable cases cited by the respondent. The Court also accepted that the discount for good character and remorse was not excessive and that the Crown had erred in applying the discount for a guilty plea to the starting point rather than to the nominal end sentence. The Court concluded that a sentence of seven years and three months’ imprisonment was appropriate. However, as the disparity between the sentence indicated and the sentence imposed was one year and three months’ imprisonment, the Court granted Mr Lawrie leave to vacate his guilty pleas.

Orders