R v Pomee - [2018] NZHC 2891

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-044-003104

[2018] NZHC 2891

THE QUEEN

v

GEORGE CHRISTOPHER POMEE

Hearing: 9 November 2018

Counsel:

MJ Mortimer for Crown LB Cordwell for Defendant

Judgment:

9 November 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland. LB Cordwell, Auckland.

R v POMEE [2018] NZHC 2891 [9 November 2018]

Introduction

[1] Mr Pomee, you are for sentence on two charges of aggravated robbery and one of kidnapping. You will recall reference this morning to other charges—I have dismissed those. The charges for which you are for sentence are third-strike offences. This means I must impose the maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. In short, I have no choice about that. And, I must order you to serve the sentence without parole, unless that would be manifestly unjust.

[2] You will recall pleading guilty after a sentence indication. I said I would likely conclude it would be manifestly unjust to preclude the possibility of parole. But, I also said I would likely impose a minimum period of imprisonment. I am going to sentence you as I said I would.

Facts

[3]I begin, as I must, with your first- and second-strike offences.

First-strike

[4]Two robberies earned you your first strike.

[5] On 11 November 2013, you approached the victim from behind and tried to grab his mobile phone. He resisted. You punched him to the face, causing him to fall and hit his head. While he was on the ground, dazed, you took his phone and keys. You ran away.

[6] On 14 November 2013, you approached another victim from behind. She was 67. This victim was about to withdraw money from an ATM. You grabbed her wallet, hurting her finger. Again, you ran away.

[7] You were sentenced to one year and 11 months’ imprisonment. You were also sentenced for similar thefts.

Second-strike

[8] On 23 April 2015, you committed aggravated robbery. Your victim was only 16. You took his bank card and phone, and demanded the PIN for each. You were armed with a piece of wood. You threatened the victim with violence—and death. You said you had a gun too. You made the victim accompany you to a local TAB, where you emptied his account (of $8).

[9] You then asked him for cash, which he did not have. You took his shoes as “security”. You told him to meet you the next day. You said if he told anyone what happened your gang would come after him. When the two of you met the next day, he gave you $20. You took his money but did not return his property.

[10]For this offending, you were sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.

[11]All of this you no doubt remember.

Your offending for sentence today

[12] On 3 August 2017, two men parked their car. You and your associates parked next to them. You then robbed them, searching them and their car. You took…

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 Pomee

Details

AGLC: R v Pomee [2018] NZHC 2891
Case: [2018] NZHC 2891
Decision Date: 9 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, George Christopher Pomee, was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for two charges of aggravated robbery and one of kidnapping. The case against Pomee involved a series of violent robberies targeting individuals in public places, with threats of violence and the use of weapons. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the mandatory maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment for each charge under the three-strikes regime and whether ordering Pomee to serve the sentence without parole would be manifestly unjust. The judge acknowledged Pomee's criminal history, which included previous convictions for dishonesty, but also considered his age, the potential for rehabilitation, and his expressions of remorse and insight. The judge concluded that ordering Pomee to serve the sentence without parole would be manifestly unjust and imposed a minimum period of five and a half years before parole eligibility. Therefore, Pomee was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment for each charge, with a minimum non-parole period of five and a half years.

Orders