R v Rewi - [2013] NZHC 995

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-292-245 [2013] NZHC 995

THE QUEEN

v

DILLON REWI

Hearing: 7 May 2013

Counsel: G R Kayes for Crown
I Jayanandan for Prisoner

Sentence: 7 May 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOBSON J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland for Crown

Counsel:
I Jayanandan, Auckland for Prisoner

R v REWI HC AK CRI-2012-292-245 [7 May 2013]

[1] Mr Rewi, I have to sentence you this morning on two convictions. One is for aggravated robbery and the second is for conversion of a motor vehicle.

[2] On 11 July 2011, you stole a Nissan Terrano motor vehicle, and that has given rise to the conviction for conversion of a vehicle. The maximum penalty for that is seven years’ imprisonment. The vehicle was one of two stolen to facilitate you and others committing an aggravated robbery.

[3] Then, on 14 July 2011, at about 11.30 in the morning, three males carried out an aggravated robbery of the Junction Bar in East Tamaki. All three were disguised, wearing St John Ambulance high visibility jackets, two of the men had beanies or similar items covering their faces and the third man was wearing a crash helmet. One of the three men was armed with a hand gun and a second was armed with a relatively large knife, estimated to have a blade of some 30 centimetres long. Mr Kayes has advised me this morning that the gun was not recovered and I accept the Crown proposition that I should therefore treat it as an unloaded gun, and it would have been worse had there been evidence of it being loaded.

[4] The offenders told the staff and a number of customers who were in the bar to lie on the ground and not to move. They then forced the woman bar manager into an office area of the bar, made her open the safe and took out approximately $25,000 in cash and put it in the bag that the robbers had brought with them.

[5] The offenders fled the scene in the second of the stolen vehicles, a Mazda Familia. The summary of facts states that the Mazda was seen travelling in convoy with the Nissan that you have been convicted of stealing, with the Mazda being abandoned a short distance from the scene of the robbery and all the offenders then leaving the area in the Nissan.

[6] When you were spoken to by the Police some time later, you admitted stealing the Nissan. You told the Police that you had been approached by one of the three men planning the robbery who asked if you wanted to participate in it and earn some money. You told the Police you were parked near to the site of the robbery in

the stolen Nissan and that you drove the three males from the scene. You told the

Police you had been paid $4,000 for your part in the robbery.

[7] I am to sentence you on the basis…

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 Rewi

Details

AGLC: R v Rewi [2013] NZHC 995
Case: [2013] NZHC 995
Decision Date: 7 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rewi, the defendant was sentenced on two convictions: aggravated robbery and conversion of a motor vehicle. The aggravated robbery occurred on 14 July 2011, when the defendant and two accomplices, disguised and armed, robbed the Junction Bar in East Tamaki, taking approximately $25,000 in cash. The defendant was not present in the bar but was involved in the planning and provided a vehicle for the getaway. The motor vehicle conversion charge related to a Nissan Terrano stolen on 11 July 2011 to facilitate the robbery. The defendant admitted to stealing the vehicle and was paid $4,000 for his involvement.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant's involvement in the aggravated robbery and motor vehicle conversion. The court considered the seriousness of the offending, the defendant's culpability, and the principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court also assessed the defendant's personal circumstances, such as his age, criminal history, and potential for rehabilitation.

The court began by establishing a starting point for the aggravated robbery sentence based on the guideline judgment from the Court of Appeal in R v Mako. The court found that the defendant's offending fit the category for which the starting point is six plus years. The court then considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his age, criminal history, and potential for rehabilitation. The court accepted that no uplift was required for the defendant's previous convictions but acknowledged that his offending was worse because it was committed when he was only 18 and in the context of a pattern of offending. The court gave the defendant credit for his relative youth, reducing the sentence by four months. The court also considered the defendant's guilty pleas, remorse, and offer to make amends, reducing the sentence by a further 20%. The final sentence for the aggravated robbery was four years and three months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the sentence for motor vehicle conversion, which was 15 months' imprisonment.

The court's reasoning and outcome in this case demonstrate the importance of considering the seriousness of the offending, the defendant's culpability, and the principles of sentencing when determining an appropriate sentence. The court balanced the defendant's personal circumstances and potential for rehabilitation with the need to denounce criminal behaviour and deter others from similar offending. The court's decision reflects a commitment to achieving a consistent outcome with sentences in comparable cases and imposing the least restrictive outcome appropriate in all the circumstances.

Orders