Legal Research
Cases
R v Royal

R v Royal

Case [2009] NZCA 65 10 March 2009

Aggravated Robbery

Sentencing

Mako Guidelines

Criminal Responsibility

Youth

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA464/2008
[2009] NZCA 65
THE QUEEN
v
JOHN ROYAL
Hearing:23 February 2009

Court:Chambers, Gendall and Allan JJ
Counsel:P J Kaye for Appellant

A Markham for Crown

Judgment:10 March 2009 at 4 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Allan J)
[1]       Following a jury trial in the Manukau District Court, the appellant was found guilty of aggravated robbery. On 3 June 2008 he was sentenced by Judge Treston to nine years six months imprisonment. He now appeals against that sentence.
Factual background
[2]       In the early hours of Sunday 10 September 2006, six members of a Pakuranga family were asleep in their home when they were disturbed by three masked offenders who smashed their way through the front door. Two of the intruders carried firearms and the other had a sledgehammer. They were dressed in imitation police clothing, including bulletproof vests, and claimed to be members of the Armed Offenders Squad.
[3]       Family members, the youngest of whom was a 13 year old girl, were herded together in a bedroom, where they were bound and gagged with tape brought to the scene by the offenders. One stood guard with a shotgun, which he racked from time to time in order to intimidate the victims. A second offender searched the house and took approximately $2000 in cash, together with a cell phone. The third offender, carrying a pistol, took a middle aged male occupant into the kitchen where an element of the stove was turned on, and instructions given that the victim should sit on it. He refused to do so and subsequently was threatened and punched to the floor, where he received kicks to the head and body. Money and valuables were demanded. The offender took a knife from a kitchen door and slashed his victim’s upper body and thighs, so causing cuts to his clothing and to his body. Fortunately the invasion was noticed by neighbours, who called the police.
[4]       The appellant was not one of the three intruders. Instead, he was standing guard in a vehicle parked some distance up the road. As the police approached, the appellant advised the offenders by mobile phone and initially drove his vehicle in a manner that was intended to prevent the police from reaching the victims’ address. He then undertook a sharp U-turn, and accelerated away from the scene in an attempt to lure police away from his co-offenders. Two patrol cars did pursue him, and he was eventually apprehended.
[5]       A third patrol car remained at the victims’ address. As the offenders ran from the house, one pointed a shotgun at an officer. All three intruders got into a second vehicle and left the scene. Although this vehicle crashed a short distance away, the three occupants managed to escape before the police arrived. Their identity was discovered only at a later date. The stolen money has not been recovered.
[6]       At trial…

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 Royal

Details

AGLC: R v Royal [2009] NZCA 65
Case: [2009] NZCA 65
Decision Date: 10 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an appeal by John Royal against his nine years and six months imprisonment sentence for aggravated robbery. The appellant was not one of the three intruders who committed the crime but acted as a lookout and decoy, attempting to obstruct police intervention. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, contending that the starting point adopted by the sentencing judge was too high, insufficient weight was given to his limited role in the crime, his youth was not adequately considered, and his sentence was disproportionate compared to his co-offenders.

The Court found that the sentencing judge appropriately considered the guidelines provided in R v Mako, which emphasised the importance of determining each case on its own facts. The Court held that a starting point of around 11 years imprisonment was appropriate, given the nature of the crime and its impact on the victims. Although the appellant did not directly participate in the violence or theft, he played a significant role as a lookout and decoy, and took active steps to obstruct police intervention. The Court also noted that the appellant's prior criminal history and recidivist nature limited the emphasis that could be placed on his age at the time of the offence.

The Court found that the sentence imposed on the appellant was appropriate and within the available range, considering the appellant's role in the crime, his youth, and his prior criminal history. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders