R v Marsters - [2013] NZHC 1434

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-202-245 [2013] NZHC 1434

THE QUEEN

v

TEARIKI MARSTERS

Hearing: 14 June 2013

Counsel: G Kayes for the Crown
W M Ryan for Mr Marsters

Sentencing: 14 June 2013

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Counsel / Solicitors:
Mr G Kayes, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Mr W M Ryan, Barrister, Auckland

R v MARSTERS [2013] NZHC 1434 [14 June 2013]

[1] Mr Marsters, you may remain seated while I explain the sentence.

[2] You appear for sentence for four offences of aggravated robbery and eight offences of car conversion. The maximum penalty for aggravated robbery – and that is for one robbery – is 14 years imprisonment. You need to reflect on that. The maximum penalty for car conversion is 7 years imprisonment.

Summary of sentence

[3] I need to summarise the facts of the offences, summarise matters relating to you personally, and explain the sentence that I am going to impose. That is not just for your benefit but for the benefit of others in the Court, including your family; and we have waited – and quite properly – for them to be present. And it is also to explain it to the wider community.

[4] But I think it is important before I go into the detail to tell you that the sentence I am going to impose is 10 years imprisonment. That in fact – although I have approached it differently from both counsel to an extent – is the sort of sentence that Mr Ryan has submitted on your behalf should be imposed. I have also concluded that this is not a case where there should be a minimum non-parole period or what is called in the Act a minimum period of imprisonment. I need to explain.

Summary of facts

[5] Dealing with the facts of the offences in summary. There were four aggravated robberies of commercial premises between 27 June and 25 July 2011. Having presided at the trial I am satisfied that you were a principal offender in two of these robberies and a party to the other two. All but one of the car conversions was carried out for the purposes of one or more of the robberies. One of the cars converted by you – on 22 June 2011 – count 3 – was used in two robberies, on 22
June and 23 June, but you were found not guilty of charges of being involved in those robberies as a party.

[6] I will now summarise the facts, mainly of the robberies.

Grace’s Place, Otahuhu, 27 June 2011

[7] The first was Grace’s Place, Otahuhu, on 27 June. This is a bar. This aggravated robbery occurred at approximately 7:00 pm. Three robbers entered the premises, including a friend of yours. The men were wearing hoodies and had their faces covered. One was armed with an inoperable Lee-Enfield rifle. The rifle was pointed at the head of the bar manager. She fell…

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 Marsters

Details

AGLC: R v Marsters [2013] NZHC 1434
Case: [2013] NZHC 1434
Decision Date: 14 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, was tasked with sentencing Teariki Marsters for four offences of aggravated robbery and eight offences of car conversion. The maximum penalty for aggravated robbery is 14 years imprisonment, and for car conversion, it is 7 years imprisonment. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Marsters, considering the facts of the offences, his personal circumstances, and the statutory guidelines. The court determined a starting point of around 7 years for the lead offence, the Panmure Hotel robbery, and added 3 years for the other offences, resulting in a total sentence of 10 years imprisonment. The court decided not to impose a minimum period of imprisonment, acknowledging Marsters' family support and encouraging him to reflect on his future.

Marsters was found to be a principal offender in two of the four aggravated robberies and a party to the other two, with all but one of the car conversions being used for the robberies. The court took into account the aggravating factors of the offences, such as the degree of planning and premeditation, the targeting of commercial premises, the use of disguises and threatening weapons, and the significant sums of money stolen. The court also considered Marsters' personal circumstances, including his age, criminal history, and lack of lawful employment. Despite his extensive criminal history and lack of remorse, the court decided not to increase the sentence for his previous offences, taking into account the totality of the sentence and the significant sentence already imposed.

Orders