R v Petersen - [2022] NZHC 2742

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2021-063-2740

[2022] NZHC 2742

THE KING

v

TRENT TE AHU JOSH PETERSEN LEEANNE HEMA

Sentencing: 21 October 2022

Counsel:

H R Hancock for the Crown I Hard for Mr Petersen

P N Allan for Ms Hema (by AVL)

Sentencing Notes:

21 October 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF GWYN J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Wellington

Copy to:
Mr Hard, Greytown Mr Allan, Christchurch

R v PETERSEN & HEMA [2022] NZHC 2742 [21 October 2022]

Introduction

[1] Trent Petersen and Leeanne Hema you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery.1

[2] In sentencing you today, I apply a law called the Sentencing Act 2002, which sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing. The purpose of sentencing in your case is to hold each of you accountable for the harm you have caused, to have you accept responsibility for, and acknowledge, that harm; to denounce and deter the criminal conduct; to protect the community; and to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into society.2 What that means in practice is that I have to look at the whole situation and do what I can to mark what you have done, but also to acknowledge each of you and your particular circumstances and background.

[3] In sentencing you, I will first say something about your offending, explain your personal circumstances, and set out counsel’s submissions. I will then calculate a sentence by adopting a two-step approach: first, I set a starting point based on the offences you are charged with; and second, I will consider whether to apply any increases (uplifts) and discounts to reflect your personal aggravating and mitigating factors.

[4] Because sentencing is a public process, I have to talk about the detail of what happened.

The offending

[5] You have pleaded guilty to robbing the victim on 30 November 2020. The victim was known to you, Ms Hema, through his partner. He had previously driven you from the hospital. He had some of your belongings and you arranged for him to drop those off at an address in Masterton.

[6] When the victim arrived at the address at the agreed time, Ms Hema, you were waiting for him along with Mr Petersen and an associate. During the unloading of the

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 234 carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
2 Sentencing Act 2002, s 7.

belongings, Ms Hema, you got the victim to come out of the car. You then took the keys out of the ignition. At this point, Mr Petersen, you and an associate came out of the house.

[7] Mr Petersen, you then accused the victim of having ripped off a Killer Beez gang member, with which you have had some association. Your associate then punched the victim in the face and stomach, before Mr Petersen, you demanded from the victim his cell phone, cigarettes and wallet.

[8] Mr Petersen, you…

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 Petersen

Details

AGLC: R v Petersen [2022] NZHC 2742
Case: [2022] NZHC 2742
Decision Date: 21 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trent Petersen and Leeanne Hema were sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for their guilty pleas to the charge of robbery. The Crown argued that the robbery was planned, involved violence, and had a gang element, while the defence submitted that the robbery was unsophisticated and driven by the need to provide for Petersen's pregnant partner. The judge set a starting point of two years and two months for Petersen and 16 months for Hema, considering the limited planning and absence of weapons or disguises. The judge discounted each sentence by 20% for their guilty pleas and 15% for their personal mitigating factors, resulting in a sentence of 17 months for Petersen and 10½ months for Hema. However, the judge commuted Petersen's sentence to eight months of home detention, taking into account his desire to change and the detrimental effects of imprisonment on his children. Hema was sentenced to 12 months of intensive supervision, considering her mental health challenges and promising rehabilitative prospects. Both defendants were ordered to pay $650 in reparation to the victim.

The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including holding the defendants accountable for the harm caused, denouncing and deterring criminal conduct, protecting the community, and assisting in the defendants' rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court also considered the defendants' personal circumstances, including their difficult upbringings and limited emotional and cultural support, which had led them to a life of crime. The court acknowledged the defendants' desire to change and their efforts to make positive changes to their lifestyles. The court focused on the defendants' rehabilitation, considering it the best way to serve their long-term interests, the interests of their families, and the interests of the wider public.

Orders