Legal Research
Cases
R v Samuels

R v Samuels

Case [2009] NZCA 153 29 April 2009

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Sentencing

Breach of Community Order

Burglary

Use of Firearm Against Police

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA630/2008
[2009] NZCA 153
THE QUEEN
v
JAMES RAYMOND SAMUELS
Hearing:20 April 2009

Court:Ellen France, Heath and Fogarty JJ
Counsel:R J Laybourn for Appellant

N P Chisnall for Crown

Judgment:29 April 2009 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Fogarty J)
Introduction
[1]       Mr Samuels appeals against a term of ten years imprisonment that was imposed on him by Judge Ingram in the District Court on 26 September 2008. He had entered guilty pleas to eight informations against s 198A of the Crimes Act 1961 of using a firearm against the police, which comprised four charges of presenting that firearm and four of discharging the weapon.
[2]       A term of ten years imprisonment was imposed on lead charges arising out of the discharges of the rifle. On the other firearms charges he was sentenced to a period of eight years. He was sentenced on a charge of burglary for three years and for two months each in respect of breach of community work and breach of supervision. On an unlawful taking of a vehicle charge he was sentenced to a period of one year. All sentences are to be served concurrently.
[3]       All these charges arose from the burglary of a private home from which the appellant and his partner stole a .22 rifle, ammunition, and a motor vehicle. They left the scene and were then pursued in an extended police chase, over a period of half an hour or more, for a distance of 50 to 60 kilometres.
[4]       During the pursuit Mr Samuels aimed the rifle at the pursuing vehicles. On four occasions he fired shots. The chase ended with Mr Samuels emerging from the vehicle, with the rifle in hand and his finger on the trigger. He failed to comply with police instructions to put the rifle down. Instead he walked towards the police. In the face of repeated instructions to disarm he raised the rifle and aimed directly at a constable. He was shot. He was struck in the chest and seriously wounded. He is now confined to a wheelchair. He was 19 years old at the time.
[5]       As a 17 year old youth Mr Samuels had appeared in the Youth Court in January 2005 on six charges including burglary with a weapon, receiving drugs, and theft. In 2006 he had been convicted in the District Court for disorderly behaviour. In February 2007 he had appeared in the District Court on several charges; in May, one charge; in June, five charges, being variously minor offences of theft and other offences such as unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle and assault.
[6]       At the time of this offending he was on bail and still subject to Court sentences which had not been completed. He had not been sent to prison.
Summary of the reasons for the sentences
[7]       The Judge kept:
… steadily in mind that multiple…

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 Samuels

Details

AGLC: R v Samuels [2009] NZCA 153
Case: [2009] NZCA 153
Decision Date: 29 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Samuels involved an appeal against a sentence imposed by Judge Ingram in the District Court, where the appellant, Mr Samuels, had been found guilty of using a firearm against police officers. The appellant had entered guilty pleas to charges under section 198A of the Crimes Act 1961, which pertains to using a firearm against law enforcement officers. The charges included presenting and discharging a firearm during a police chase, following a burglary from which a.22 rifle, ammunition, and a motor vehicle were stolen. The District Court sentenced Mr Samuels to a term of ten years imprisonment, with additional sentences for related charges. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate, focusing on the starting point, the uplift for aggravating factors, and the discount for mitigating factors.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by Judge Ingram was excessive or inappropriate. The appellant's counsel argued that the starting point of 12 years was too high, the uplift of three years was excessive, and the deductions for mitigating factors were inadequate. The Court examined whether the sentence was justified given the severity of the offences and the appellant's criminal history. The Court also considered the legislative intent behind section 198A of the Crimes Act, which mandates severe punishment for using firearms against law enforcement officers.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the sentence imposed by Judge Ingram was appropriate. The Court found that the starting point of 12 years was justified given the serious nature of the offences, and the uplift of three years for the extensive police chase and other aggravating factors was warranted. The Court also determined that the discounts for the appellant's guilty plea, youth, and the serious injury he suffered were within the appropriate range. The Court acknowledged the totality principle and upheld the sentence, affirming that the appellant's criminal history and the circumstances of the offences warranted a severe punishment.

In light of the Court's reasoning, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of ten years imprisonment was upheld. The Court emphasised the importance of deterrence in sentencing for offences involving the use of firearms against law enforcement officers and supported the District Court's decision to impose a sentence close to the maximum penalty prescribed by law.

Orders