R v Redshaw - [2022] NZHC 1175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2021-288-28

[2022] NZHC 1175

THE QUEEN

v

BRETT REDSHAW

Counsel:
C S Taylor for Crown

A B Fairley for Defendant

Sentenced:

26 May 2022

Charges:

Aggravated Robbery (3); Unlawfully taking motor vehicle

Plea:

Guilty

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors:
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith (Whangārei) for Crown Thomson Wilson (Whangārei) for Defendant

R v REDSHAW [2022] NZHC 1175 [26 May 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Redshaw, you pleaded guilty to three charges of aggravated robbery with a firearm1 and one charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle.2

[2] I am going to be talking to you for quite some time. I know that all you want to know is what the outcome is. But there is a wider audience for what I have to say than just you –there are the victims; there are other lawyers; there might even be other Courts. So, if you think I am taking a bit of time it is because I am actually talking to quite a lot of people and not just yourself.

[3]I gave you a sentence indication on 3 February 2022 as follows:3

[7] I assess the starting point as eight years’ imprisonment. I would not increase the starting point to take account of your criminal history. I would consider your criminal history as a factor going to a discount for your youth.

[8]As to the discounts:

(a)You are 18 years old. You were 17 years old at the time of the alleged offending. You would get a discount for youth. But, your extensive and relevant previous offending would be a factor limiting the discount. On the other hand, reports showing that you have real prospects of rehabilitation, a positive pre-sentence report and a relevant cultural (s 27) report could increase the discount.

(b)You would be entitled to a discount for pleas of guilty. I would be generous and make that a 20 per cent discount.

[4] That is what I said to you on 3 February 2022. But, in preparing for your sentencing, I have decided that a starting point of eight years was too high. I will explain why shortly. I will adopt a starting point of seven years.

[5] That means that what I have to do today is assess the further discounts you are entitled to for your youth and background.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 235(b): carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 226(1): carrying a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
3      R v Redshaw [2022] NZHC 87.

Background

[6]I will begin by summarising your offending.

[7] At the time of the offending you were 17 years old. You committed the offending with your co-offender, a man who is five-and-a-half years older than you.

[8] The first two aggravated robberies were of the Pizza Place and then the GAS service station which are located in the same building in Tikipunga.

[9] On 7 June 2021…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Redshaw and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NZHC 1175
Decision Date: 26 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Brett Redshaw, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, involved Mr Redshaw who pleaded guilty to three charges of aggravated robbery with a firearm and one charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle. The court, presided over by Brewer J, was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Mr Redshaw, taking into account the nature of the offences, the impact on the victims, and Mr Redshaw's personal background and criminal history. The primary legal issues were the determination of an appropriate starting point for the sentence and the extent of any discount to be applied based on Mr Redshaw's youth and background.

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences, which involved the use of a firearm, careful planning, and targeting of vulnerable retail stores. It considered the significant impact on the victims, who experienced severe fear and distress during the robberies. Brewer J also examined Mr Redshaw's background, noting his troubled upbringing, early exposure to criminal activities, and lack of stable role models. Despite these factors, the court emphasised that Mr Redshaw's prior offending history and his lack of genuine remorse and motivation for change limited the extent of any discount for his youth and background. The court ultimately decided on a starting point of seven years' imprisonment, reduced by 45% due to discounts for youth, background, and pleas of guilty, resulting in a sentence of three years and ten months' imprisonment to be served concurrently. Brewer J encouraged Mr Redshaw to take advantage of educational and rehabilitation opportunities in prison to improve his future prospects.

Orders