R v Paki - [2013] NZHC 1008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-004-007802 [2013] NZHC 1008

THE QUEEN

v

CHARLES PAKI

Charges: Aggravated Robbery x4

Plea: Guilty

Appearances: N Webby for Crown
M Wharepouri for Prisoner

Sentenced: 8 May 2013
Nine years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of 4½ years
SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Copy to: M Wharepouri, Auckland

R V PAKI HC AK CRI-2012-004-007802 [8 May 2013]

[1] Charles Paki, you are for sentence in this Court having pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated robbery. The maximum penalty for aggravated robbery is 14 years’ imprisonment.

[2] At 3.15 in the afternoon on 5 April last year, you went into a clothing shop in High Street. The shopkeeper was alone. You were holding a black handgun. You said: “Where’s the money?” You then moved part of the top of the gun and said: “Otherwise I will shoot you”. There was then a discussion about money. Ultimately the victim produced her handbag and gave you a $10 note and two $5 notes. You left after directing her not to tell anyone about the incident or to call anyone for half an hour.

[3] Shortly afterwards at about 3.30 in the afternoon of the same day you went to another shop, Ace Mart, in the PricewaterhouseCoopers building on Quay Street. It was a superette owned and operated by the victim and her husband. Again the victim was alone. You pulled the black coloured hand gun out. With your finger on the trigger you pointed the gun at the victim and then pointed at the cash register. The victim removed two $20 notes and passed them, together with two packets of tobacco, to you.

[4] Later the same day, at about 6.20 pm, you went to another store, this time in Dominion Road. You waited until you and the victim were the only two people in the shop. You took the gun out from beneath your top, held it at waist level and pointed it at the victim. You told her to open the till but she walked past you and started screaming. You then pushed her to the floor, placed your hand over her mouth and told her to “shush”. You asked her to open the till which she did. She gave you a $50 note. You asked for another $50, which she also gave you. You then asked for a further $20. She said she could not do that and you left shortly after.

[5] Two days later, just after 6.00 o’clock in the evening, you went to a parking building. You got into an elevator with a woman. You pulled the gun out of your front right pocket of your sweatshirt and said: “Give me your purse”. When the elevator doors opened the victim walked past you to get away. You again said:

“Give me your purse”. When she tried to run away you chased her saying: “Give me your purse, my gun is loaded”. The victim…

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 Paki

Details

AGLC: R v Paki [2013] NZHC 1008
Case: [2013] NZHC 1008
Decision Date: 8 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Charles Paki was sentenced for four counts of aggravated robbery. The court acknowledged Paki's guilty plea but noted the severity of the crimes, which involved using a toy gun to rob three stores and a parking building, causing significant emotional and psychological harm to the victims. The court considered Paki's extensive criminal history, including previous convictions for similar offenses, and his offending while on parole. The sentencing judge assessed the need for accountability, denunciation, deterrence, community protection, and rehabilitation. While Paki met the criteria for preventive detention, the court decided a lengthy finite sentence would better serve the purposes of sentencing and provide an opportunity for Paki to prepare for reintegration into society.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate sentence for the aggravated robberies, considering whether Paki qualified for preventive detention, and deciding whether a finite or preventive detention sentence was more appropriate. The court analyzed Paki's criminal history, the seriousness of the offenses, the risk of reoffending, and Paki's efforts to address the causes of his offending. The court also considered the views of health assessors, who indicated Paki had a high risk of reoffending. Ultimately, the court determined that a lengthy finite sentence with a minimum non-parole period would adequately protect the community and provide Paki with an incentive to change his ways.

The court sentenced Paki to nine years' imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of four and a half years. The decision to impose a finite sentence rather than preventive detention was based on the court's assessment that Paki's recent offending was small-time and haphazard, and that a lengthy prison term would provide sufficient protection for the community while offering Paki an opportunity to prepare for reintegration into society. The court noted the possibility of an extended supervision order upon Paki's release.

The final orders of the court were that Charles Paki be sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for the four counts of aggravated robbery, with a minimum non-parole period of four and a half years. The decision emphasized the need to balance community protection with the potential for Paki's rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders