R v Robertson - [2018] NZHC 1557

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-004-1086

[2018] NZHC 1557

THE QUEEN

v

ASIA ROBERTSON

Hearing: 27 June 2018

Appearances:

N E Copeland for the Crown

A J Maxwell-Scott for the Defendant

Sentencing:

27 June 2018

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors:
Ms N E Copeland, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland Ms A J Maxwell-Scott, Barrister, Auckland

R v ROBERTSON [2018] NZHC 1557 [27 June 2018]

[1]Ms Robertson, as you know, I have got to now explain the final sentence.

[2] You appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to four charges: aggravated robbery, kidnapping, unlawfully taking a car, and dishonestly using a document.

[3] You pleaded guilty after I provided a sentence indication. The sentence indication contains a summary of the facts and my reasons for concluding that the starting point for all the offences should be 4 ½ years imprisonment.

[4] Because those matters are fully set out in the sentence indication, and because the sentence indication may now be published, it forms part of, and will be attached to, the transcript of what I am now saying. What I will now discuss are the reasons why I consider that factors personal to you justify a reduction of 35 per cent from the starting point. There will be a further 20 per cent reduction for your guilty pleas.

[5] After you pleaded guilty I directed that a report be provided under s 38(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. I have received a comprehensive report from a clinical psychologist, Sanjeeta Sharma. Ms Sharma’s opinion, which I accept, establishes two matters relevant to sentence – and I state these in a very broad way.

[6] The first is that your personal history – which Ms Sharma assessed in respect of 11 different aspects of your personal history – coupled with your current psychological problems, justify a substantial reduction of the starting point. I do not intend to summarise the wide range of significant difficulties you have experienced from a very young age or the current psychological problems. They are contained in the report. The important thing will be for a copy of the report to be made available not only to the Parole Board but also to the Corrections Department, for reasons I will come to and which were noted by Ms Maxwell-Scott on your behalf.

[7] The second broad conclusion from Ms Sharma’s report – and as I have briefly discussed with Ms Maxwell-Scott – is that, if you return to the community without supervision, and if other circumstances are present, and which are possibly likely to be present, there is a high risk that you will reoffend – certainly a high risk of other

difficulties in the community. This conclusion, which I accept, bears on the type of sentence to be imposed depending on the assessment of an end sentence.

[8] In assessing a reduction of the starting point, for the…

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 Robertson

Details

AGLC: R v Robertson [2018] NZHC 1557
Case: [2018] NZHC 1557
Decision Date: 27 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Asia Robertson faced sentencing for aggravated robbery, kidnapping, unlawfully taking a car, and dishonestly using a document. The case involved a planned robbery where Robertson and three others lured a complainant to a motel, threatened him with knives, and stole money from his accounts. The court needed to determine the appropriate sentence considering the severity of the crimes, the defendant's personal circumstances, and the effect of her guilty pleas.

The legal issues before the court were to establish a starting point for the sentence based on the seriousness of the offences, assess any personal factors that might warrant a reduction, and determine the impact of Robertson's guilty pleas on her sentence. The starting point was set at 4 ½ years imprisonment, with an additional year considered for the other charges, though this was later deemed unnecessary. Personal factors, including Robertson's young age and psychological issues, warranted a reduction from this starting point. Additionally, her early guilty pleas entitled her to a further reduction.

Justice Woodhouse concluded that the starting point should be reduced by 35% due to Robertson's personal circumstances and an additional 20% for her guilty pleas. This resulted in an effective sentence of 28 months imprisonment, taking into account the time Robertson had already spent in custody. The court directed that a comprehensive psychological report and sentencing notes be sent to both the Corrections Department and the Parole Board to ensure Robertson received appropriate treatment and support. The formal sentence imposed was 2 years and 4 months imprisonment, with all sentences to run concurrently.

Orders