R v Ropitini - [2012] NZHC 1927

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

CRI-2011-006-1309 [2012] NZHC 1927

THE QUEEN

v

TAN JUNIOR ROPITINI JAMES RAYMOND MARZOLA TAI HAPATA CAMERON GORRIE NIOULINI DAVID FOTU REBECCA ROSE FOSTER

Hearing: 2 August 2012

Counsel: M A O'Donoghue for Crown
JCS Sanston for Ropitini
M Hardy-Jones for Marzola
P J Butler for Gorrie
B Daniell-Smith for Fotu
R A Harrison for Foster

Sentencing: 2 August 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MACKENZIE J

[1] Mr Ropitini, you appear for sentence on two charges of aggravated robbery, two charges of assault with intent to rob, one charge of burglary and one charge of threatening to cause grievous bodily harm.

[2] Mr Marzola, you are for sentence on two charges of assault with intent to rob, two charges of offering to supply cannabis to a person under 18 years of age, and
two charges of offering the supply a class A drug, LSD.

R V ROPITINI HC BLE CRI-2011-006-1309 [2 August 2012]

[3] Mr Gorrie, you appear for sentence on one charge of aggravated robbery and one charge of assault with intent to rob.

[4] Mr Fotu, you appear for sentence on two charges of aggravated robbery, one charge of assault with intent to rob and two charges of burglary.

[5] Ms Foster, you appear for sentence on one charge of assault with intent to rob.

[6] The nature of that offending is such that you are all subject to a first warning which must be given to all violent offenders. Mr Fotu you have already formally been given your warning. But I will give the warning now to all of you.

[7] Given your convictions for some of the offences I have just described you are now subject to the three strikes law. I am now going to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violent conviction. You will also be given a written notice outlining those consequences which lists the serious violence offences.

[8] First, if you are convicted of any serious violence offences other than murder committed after this warning, and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release.

[9] Second, if you are convicted of murder committed after this warning then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. That will be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

[10] I now come to the charges themselves. It is necessary for me to describe the offending in some detail. I do so by first indicating briefly the overall events and then discussing the position of each of you and your roles in the offending.

[11] The charges relate to events in February and May 2011. There were two main incidents in each of these set of events. In February, four of you were involved in an assault with intent to rob a victim who you had taken by car…

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 Ropitini

Details

AGLC: R v Ropitini [2012] NZHC 1927
Case: [2012] NZHC 1927
Decision Date: 2 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ropitini involved five defendants, each facing multiple charges stemming from a series of violent robberies and drug-related offences. The defendants were sentenced by MacKenzie J in the Blenheim Registry of the High Court of New Zealand. The legal issues centered on determining appropriate sentences for each defendant, taking into account the nature and extent of their involvement in the crimes, their personal circumstances, and the principle of totality in sentencing. The court had to balance the need for denunciation and deterrence against the defendants' potential for rehabilitation.

The court meticulously outlined the roles of each defendant in the offending, highlighting the premeditated and violent nature of the crimes. MacKenzie J set starting points for each defendant's sentence based on their level of involvement, adjusting these starting points to reflect the totality principle. Personal circumstances, such as age, employment history, previous convictions, and risk of re-offending, were considered in adjusting the sentences. Each defendant received a discount for their guilty pleas, and in cases of serious offending, minimum periods of imprisonment were imposed to ensure adequate denunciation and deterrence.

Ultimately, the court imposed sentences that reflected the seriousness of the offending and the individual culpability of each defendant. The sentences ranged from two years and six months to ten years, with some defendants also receiving concurrent sentences for their drug-related offences. MacKenzie J emphasized the importance of addressing the defendants' underlying issues, such as substance abuse and lack of rehabilitation, to reduce the risk of re-offending.

Orders