Legal Research
Cases
R v Rudolph

R v Rudolph

Case [2019] NZHC 1050 14 May 2019

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-2018-404-000264

[2019] NZHC 1050

THE QUEEN

v

TERRANCE RUDOLPH

Hearing: 14 May 2019

Appearances:

H Steele for the Crown

W Andrews for the Defendant

Judgment:

14 May 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v RUDOLPH [2019] NZHC 1050 [14 May 2019]

Introduction

[1]Terrance Rudolph, at the age of 30 you appear for sentence on:

(a)one charge of aggravated robbery;1 and

(b)one representative charge of dishonestly using a document.2

[2]You pleaded guilty on 1 March 2019.

[3] I now turn to the facts of your offending. Those facts will be well-known to you. But because sentencing is quintessentially a public function and must be conducted in open Court I am required to set out the facts on which I will be sentencing you.

The facts

[4] At around 2:00 am on 15 January 2017 one of your co-offenders, Asia Robertson, was at a bar on Karangahape Road. It was there that she met the victim. At around 3:00 am they agreed to leave the bar together.

[5] Ms Robertson and the victim caught a taxi and picked up your second co- offender, Carly Goodson. The three of them stopped by a motel room rented by Ms Goodson before heading to the victim’s address in Eden Terrace to pick up his car. Ms Robertson then drove the group to a motel in Epsom.

[6] You were already at the unit. After the group arrived, Ms Goodson and the victim went into a bedroom together. The victim agreed to pay Ms Goodson for sex. At that point, Nykell Hegotule burst into the bedroom. He is another co-offender. Mr Hegotule was armed with a large knife. He was wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with a gang logo.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 235(b); the maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 228(1)(b); the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.

[7] Mr Hegotule demanded the victim’s money. He threatened to stab him. He told him he was a gang member. Ms Robertson entered the bedroom, followed by you. You were holding a knife.

[8] Ms Robertson and Mr Hegotule demanded the victim’s PIN number. They directed him to transfer $5,000 to a bank account of their choosing but then told him to cancel the transfer. They took his mobile phone and wallet.

[9] You and Ms Robertson told the others that you were going to go to an ATM to withdraw money using the victim’s bank card. As you were leaving, the victim made an attempt to flee through a ranch slider. You and Ms Robertson blocked his escape. Mr Hegotule punched him in the back of the head and he collapsed dazed. He was hit again. Then he was bound and gagged.

[10] You and Ms Robertson left the motel in the victim’s car. You withdrew $2,800 from various ATMs in the area.

[11] Mr Hegotule and Ms Goodson left the motel soon after. 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 Rudolph

Details

AGLC: R v Rudolph [2019] NZHC 1050
Case: [2019] NZHC 1050
Decision Date: 14 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Terrance Rudolph stands convicted of one count of aggravated robbery and one count of dishonestly using a document. The court must determine an appropriate sentence, taking into account the facts of the offence, the offender's culpability, personal circumstances, and the principles of sentencing. The key legal issues are the starting point for sentencing, any aggravating and mitigating factors, and the discount for Rudolph's guilty pleas. The starting point for Rudolph's sentence was determined by comparing his level of culpability to that of his co-offenders, who received sentences ranging from two years and nine months to five years. Rudolph's role in the offence, while significant, was less than that of his co-offenders, and he was not a mastermind or chief participant. The court found an appropriate starting point to be three years and nine months' imprisonment. The court considered various aggravating and mitigating factors, including the impact on the victim, Rudolph's personal background, expressions of remorse, and efforts at rehabilitation. The court decided to apply a 10% discount for mitigating factors and a 15% discount for Rudolph's guilty pleas. The final sentence imposed was two years and ten months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently with a six-month sentence for the dishonest use of a document. The judge also provided a first-strike warning, informing Rudolph of the consequences should he commit another serious violent offence.

Orders