R v Samson - [2018] NZHC 1500

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

CRI-2017-085-2143

[2018] NZHC 1500

THE QUEEN

v

BRONSON BOUDINE SAMSON

Sentencing: 21 June 2018

Counsel:

J M O’Sullivan for Crown K Preston for Defendant

Sentencing Remarks:

21 June 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] Mr Samson, you appear today for sentence having pleaded guilty to 10 separate charges:

(a)two charges of aggravated robbery;1

(b)5 x charges of using a document;2

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 235(b). Maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 228(b). Maximum penalty is 7 years’ imprisonment.

R v SAMSON (SENTENCING REMARKS), 21 June 2018 [2018] NZHC 1500

(c)1 x charge of kidnapping;3

(d)1 x charge of aggravated wounding;4 and

(e)1 x charge of arson.5

[2] You have already entered a guilty plea to one of those charges of aggravated robbery on 23 March 2018 before Thomas J. A conviction was entered at that time and a first strike warning given to you in terms of s 86A of the Sentencing Act 2002.

[3] I note that both counsel in their full submissions which I have read, are agreed that a sentence of imprisonment is the least restrictive option appropriate in the circumstances, and indeed your comments to the Probation Officer indicate that you understand why it is that a substantial prison sentence has to be imposed on you in this case.

[4]In sentencing you this morning, I am going to explain the context for:

(a)your offending;

(b)the sentencing approach that I am obliged to take;

(c)the starting point which I have adopted, and indeed you understand that already from the sentencing indication which you have accepted;

(d)the various adjustments that I have made to that starting point to reflect what is the totality of your offending, having regard to your prior convictions and also giving you credit for your guilty plea, and for the remorse and insight that your counsel has emphasised in his oral submissions this morning, and that is evident in the written note that you have prepared.

3      Section 209(b). Maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 191(1)(a). Maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 267(1)(a). Maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.

Your offending

[5]I can start with describing your offending.

[6] The charges that you are sentenced today on arise from two separate incidents. As you know the first one occurred at Petone Beach, and the second one involved a taxi driver.

Petone Beach incident

[7] On 8 August last year, you and your associate confronted two victims on the Petone waterfront. Your associate threatened the victims while you stood close by and kept watch. When one of the victims tried to run, you stopped him and you dragged him back to the scene of the robbery, where the threats continued and the victims handed over their possessions. You and your associate then left, and you used the bank card that you had taken from one of the victims…

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 Samson

Details

AGLC: R v Samson [2018] NZHC 1500
Case: [2018] NZHC 1500
Decision Date: 21 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Samson was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand on 10 charges, including two charges of aggravated robbery, five charges of using a document, one charge of kidnapping, one charge of aggravated wounding, and one charge of arson. The court considered a sentence of imprisonment to be the least restrictive option appropriate in the circumstances, and both counsel agreed on this approach. The court adopted a starting point of six and a half years' imprisonment for the aggravated robbery and made adjustments to reflect the totality of the offending, including aggravating and mitigating features. The court also imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of three years and three months to provide additional deterrence and protect the community from an offender who has demonstrated an inability to learn from past experiences. The final sentence was six years and seven months' imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of three years and three months. The court declined to make a reparation order as it would give the victims false hope that the offender might actually be able to repay the loss that was caused to them.

Orders