R v Rolleston - [2018] NZHC 2656

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-092-8415 [2018] NZHC 2656

THE QUEEN

v

SHANDA ISABELLA ROLLESTON ARONA ROLLESTON

Hearing: 12 October 2018

Counsel:

HD Benson-Pope for Crown
Q Duff for S Rolleston and on instructions from E Faleauto

Johnston for A Rolleston

Judgment:

12 October 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF FITZGERALD J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Manukau

To: Q Duff, Auckland
E Faleauto Johnston, Manukau

R v Rolleston [2018] NZHC 2656 [12 October 2018]

Introduction

[1] Shanda Rolleston and Arona Rolleston, you each appear for sentencing having pleaded guilty to various dishonesty and property-related offences which arise from your association with group that carried out burglaries which targeted the Indian community in Auckland. Though neither of you participated in the burglaries themselves, you each received, used or otherwise interfered with property stolen from the victims. From the papers, I see that for each of you, this is your first – and I very much hope your last - time to appear in the High Court.

[2] I will start today by outlining the facts upon which each of you have pleaded guilty. They will be familiar to you obviously, but it is also important that members of the public and the broader community know why I am sentencing you today in the way that I am going to.

Facts of the offending

[3] The group which you were associated with was led by Mr Dhillon. He engaged others to enter various properties by force and to steal from the occupants inside. That must have been a terrifying experience for those people. As I have noted, the involvement of the two of you started after the property had been taken.

[4] Mr Rolleston, I will start with your offending. You pleaded guilty to dishonestly using a document,1 unlawfully taking a motor vehicle,2 and to one representative charge of receiving goods of more than $1,000.3 The maximum sentence that can be imposed on each of these charges is seven years’ imprisonment. Your offending involved:

(a)On 29 June 2017, being given the keys to a stolen BMW, which you and a co-defendant then drove back to your home. You then, with others, searched it for valuables.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 228(1)(b).
2      Section 226(1).
3      Section 246 and 247(a).

(b)Also on 29 June 2017, you received a stolen Macbook Air laptop, which you attempted to sell to associates; and on 8 July 2017 receiving three stolen Toshiba laptops.

(c)Last, on 11 July 2017, using a stolen ASB bank card in an attempt to buy around $1,300 worth of sports goods online.

[5] Ms Rolleston, your offending was not dissimilar. You pleaded guilty to dishonestly using a document,4 carrying a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, and to a representative charge of receiving goods less than $500,5 carrying a maximum of three months’ imprisonment. On the first of these charges, you received a stolen ASB bank card and purchased on TradeMe perfume and…

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 Rolleston

Details

AGLC: R v Rolleston [2018] NZHC 2656
Case: [2018] NZHC 2656
Decision Date: 12 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shanda Rolleston and Arona Rolleston appeared before the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing after pleading guilty to various dishonesty and property-related offences related to their association with a group that carried out burglaries targeting the Indian community in Auckland. While neither participated in the burglaries themselves, they received, used, or otherwise interfered with stolen property. The court began by outlining the facts of the case and the charges to which each had pleaded guilty, before addressing the legal issues to be decided. The primary issue was to determine an appropriate sentence that reflected the nature of the offending, considered the personal circumstances of each defendant, and gave due weight to their guilty pleas.

The court considered the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the most serious offence committed by each defendant and the additional charges they had pleaded guilty to. The court also took into account the personal circumstances of each defendant, including their prior criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court gave significant weight to the guilty pleas entered by both defendants, resulting in a reduction of the proposed sentence. The final issue was whether a sentence of imprisonment was necessary to respond to the offending and deter further offending. The court ultimately decided that a combination of supervision, community work, and reparations was an appropriate sentence for both defendants, taking into account their personal circumstances and the need to deter future offending.

In summary, Arona Rolleston was sentenced to nine months’ supervision, 100 hours of community work, and ordered to attend an assessment for an alcohol and drug programme and any recommended counselling or treatment. Shanda Rolleston was sentenced to six months’ supervision, 80 hours of community work, and ordered to pay reparations of $500. Both sentences were to run concurrently. The court urged both defendants to address the issues leading to their offending and make the most of the opportunity provided by their sentences.

Orders