Legal Research
Cases
R v Robinson

R v Robinson

Case [2021] NZHC 1605 1 July 2021

Murder

Aggravating Factors

Mitigating Factors

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

Sentencing

Breach of Peace

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-092-002562

[2021] NZHC 1605

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL KEITH ROBINSON

Hearing: 1 July 2021

Appearances:

Chris Howard for the Crown

Shane Tait and Peter Choi for the Defendant

Judgment:

1 July 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MOORE J

R v ROBINSON [2021] NZHC 1605 [1 July 2021]

Introduction

[1] Mr Robinson, at the age of 30 you appear for sentence on one charge of murder1 and one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.2

[2] Both charges arise from an incident which took place in Otara, Auckland on 28 February 2020.

[3] On 23 April 2021, as a result of a request from your lawyer, Mr Tait, I gave you a sentence indication. I indicated that if you entered pleas of guilty to both charges, you could expect to be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (“MPI”) of 13 years.

[4] I said that the indication would be subject to adjustment in the event that further material was provided to me on the question of your personal circumstances, noting that I could not make any further comment until I had the opportunity to consider any such material if it was presented.

[5] You accepted the indication and on 7 May 2021, you pleaded guilty to both charges and convictions were entered. You were also given a warning under the so- called “three strikes” law. You were remanded to today for sentence.

[6] There will be aspects of what I say this morning which are necessarily repetitive and which you heard when I gave the indication just over two months ago. However, because sentencing is quintessentially a public function which must be undertaken in open Court (unlike the giving of a sentence indication which cannot be published or reported) a good deal of what I say today will be repetitive. That may seem tedious, but it is necessary in the interests of open justice.

[7] The real issue today is whether the indicated 13 year MPI should be adjusted downwards and, if so, by how much.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167 and 172. Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2 Section 188(1). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

Agreed facts

[8] I turn next to the facts on which you are to be sentenced. The Crown and Mr Tait have agreed on the relevant facts which are contained in a summary. What I am about to record is drawn from that summary.

[9] Your victims are Mr I, who died from the injuries you inflicted, and Joseph Ngamu who was very badly injured. The attack on them both took place at a property on Bairds Road, Otara. This was the Ngamu family home where Mr Ngamu lived with his daughter, Ruthanda, who was Mr I’s partner. Also living at that address were Mr Ngamu’s brother, Bruce Ngamu, Mr Ngamu’s adopted daughter and her partner.

[10] Your co-defendant is Timothy…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: R v Robinson [2021] NZHC 1605
Case: [2021] NZHC 1605
Decision Date: 1 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Robinson involves the sentencing of Michael Keith Robinson on charges of murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The incident took place in Otara, Auckland, on 28 February 2020, where Robinson and his co-defendant, Timothy Huriwaka, attacked two individuals, resulting in the death of one and serious injury to the other. Robinson pleaded guilty to both charges on 7 May 2021, after initially receiving a sentence indication of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 13 years.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the indicated MPI of 13 years should be adjusted and, if so, by how much. The court considered various legal principles, including the purposes and principles of sentencing and the specific requirements for sentencing murder. The court also examined whether certain aggravating factors were present that would require an MPI of at least 17 years. Ultimately, the court concluded that none of the aggravating factors warranted such a lengthy MPI, and it was necessary to focus on the appropriate MPI based on the four sentencing purposes: accountability, denouncement, deterrence, and community protection.

The court found that the aggravating features of the offence, such as the use of a lethal weapon, premeditation, and the extent of loss and harm, were present to a high degree. However, the mitigating factors, including Robinson's background of social and cultural deprivation, warranted a reduction in the MPI. After considering the pre-sentence report and cultural report, the court determined that a reduction of six months was appropriate, resulting in an MPI of 12-and-a-half years for the murder charge. For the wounding charge, Robinson was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, to run concurrently with the life sentence.

In summary, Michael Keith Robinson was sentenced to life imprisonment with an MPI of 12-and-a-half years for the murder charge and seven years' imprisonment for the wounding charge, to run concurrently.

Orders