R v N

Case [2014] NZHC 2236 16 September 2014

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRES(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-055-1321 [2014] NZHC 2236

THE QUEEN

v

N

Hearing: 16 September 2014

Appearances:

S McColgan for the Crown
E Te Whata and L Major for the Prisoner

Sentence:

16 September 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF ELLIS J

Counsel/Solicitors:
S McColgan, Meredith Connell, Auckland
E Te Whata, Public Defence Service, Manukau
L Major, Public Defence Service, Manukau

R v N [2014] NZHC 2236 [16 September 2014]

[1] N, you are for sentence today, having pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated robbery. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years imprisonment.1

Facts

[2] I need first to talk about the facts of what actually happened. On the afternoon of 25 May 2013, you and five associates met by arrangement at an address in Manurewa for the purposes of organising a robbery of the Whitehouse Tavern in Papakura. That evening, you and three of your associates went to Remuera to steal cars to use in the robbery. You and two others took a car valued at $2,000. Someone else stole another car.

[3] After returning to Manurewa, you and the others armed yourselves with various weapons, including a loaded sawn off pump action shotgun, a crow bar, large screwdrivers and a large bit drill. You put on face masks, hooded sweatshirts and caps. You also took plastic ties for the purpose of restraining your victims.

[4] You drove in the stolen cars to the car park of the tavern and waited there for about two hours. At 10.45pm the six of you entered the tavern, brandishing your weapons. You ordered the customers and staff to lie on the ground and then tied their wrists.

[5] You all abused and threatened the staff and patrons. One member of staff was threatened with a firearm and told she would have her head blown off if she did not comply with your demands. Another staff member was punched and kicked, suffering injuries that required hospitalisation.

[6] The six of you took the staff and customers’ cell phones and cash from the cash registers and two tills. The bar manager managed to slip out the back entrance of the bar and called the Police.

[7] You all fled from the tavern through the back entrance and threw stolen items over the fence, before climbing through properties to where one of the cars was

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 235.

parked. As you approached the intersection of the road, you were seen by a Police car, which followed your car until you drove onto the Southern Motorway heading north. The pursuit was then abandoned.

[8] A short time later, your car crashed on O’Connell St in Manurewa. You and one of your associates, made your way to a nearby address, where you convinced the occupant to call a taxi. The taxi arrived and picked you up but shortly…

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 N

Details

AGLC: R v N [2014] NZHC 2236
Case: [2014] NZHC 2236
Decision Date: 16 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendant, N, was sentenced for one charge of aggravated robbery. N pleaded guilty to the offence, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The court heard that N, along with five associates, had meticulously planned a robbery at the Whitehouse Tavern in Papakura, involving the theft of cars, use of various weapons, and the restraint of staff and patrons. The court acknowledged the severity of the trauma inflicted on the victims and the detailed planning and execution of the crime.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offence. Aggravating factors included the extensive planning, use of weapons, and the vulnerable nature of the victim's business. Mitigating factors included N's age at the time of the offence, his remorse, willingness to participate in restorative justice, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court also took into account N's early guilty plea, which warranted a 25% discount on the starting sentence.

The court set the starting point for the sentence at 8 years imprisonment, consistent with Court of Appeal guidelines for aggravated robbery. After applying a 25% discount for the early guilty plea and considering the mitigating factors, including N's age, potential for rehabilitation, and remorse, the court determined a final sentence of 3 years imprisonment. The court's decision highlighted the importance of balancing the gravity of the crime with the individual circumstances of the offender.

Orders