R v Sinclair-Beere - [2024] NZHC 114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-004-001732

[2024] NZHC 114

THE KING

v

AMIGO JACOBI SINCLAIR-BEERE

AND LANCE NIELSEN

Hearing: 8 February 2024

Appearances:

H Steele for Crown

M Ryan and J Seaton for Defendant Sinclair-Beere L Cordwell and G Duff for Defendant Nielsen

Date:

8 February 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland Counsel: M Ryan/J Seaton, Auckland
L Cordwell/G Duff, Auckland

R v SINCLAIR-BEERE & NIELSEN [2024] NZHC 114 [8 February 2024]

[1] Amigo Jacobi Sinclair-Beere and Lance Nielsen, you are for sentence on charges of burglary and manslaughter. Following a jury trial in this Court you were found guilty of both charges. The maximum sentence for burglary is 10 years. The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment.

[2] Your actions on 19 February 2022 caused the death of Joseph Tahana. At the time of his death Mr Tahana was 29 years old living in an apartment at St Paul Street, Central Auckland. He lived alone. He was a regular user and small-time dealer of cannabis. As is unfortunately the case of people who become involved in drug dealing he had come into contact with gangs. In the weeks prior to his death he was concerned about and for his safety.

[3] The evidence before the Court at trial involved a significant amount of CCTV footage which recorded your actions on the night. There were also relevant communications. From the verdicts the jury were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the two of you intended to unlawfully enter the St Paul Apartments and the Crown case was that was to rob Mr Tahana. You intended to steal the proceeds of his cannabis dealing. At 2.13 am Mr Sinclair-Beere you had texted another associate: “Can we just get cash, not bohe”. The CCTV footage captures you, Mr Sinclair-Beere, obtaining entry to the ground floor of the apartments via a staircase at the side of the building before letting Mr Nielsen in through the front door.

[4]The CCTV footage goes on to show you then both getting into the lift at about

2.20 am. Mr Nielsen, you were seen to have a backpack. The pair of you then travelled to the 12th floor and used a metal object of some sort to break down the door in order to force entry into Mr Tahana’s apartment. Your forcible entry left tool marks on the exterior of the front door. The door frame and door jamb were badly damaged.

[5] It took some time for you to break that door, which was a solid door, down and gain entry. Mr Tahana obviously heard your attempts to break into his apartment. He attempted to call a relative. When that was unsuccessful he sent a text message at
2.24 am which read: “I’m under attack”. In fear of violence he then attempted to flee from you by climbing over his balcony. It appears he lowered himself over the balcony

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 Sinclair-Beere

Details

AGLC: R v Sinclair-Beere [2024] NZHC 114
Case: [2024] NZHC 114
Decision Date: 8 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand in Auckland heard the case of R v Sinclair-Beere and Nielsen, where the defendants were convicted of burglary and manslaughter. The incident occurred on 19 February 2022, when the defendants intended to unlawfully enter an apartment to rob Joseph Tahana, a small-time cannabis dealer. The defendants, Amigo Jacobi Sinclair-Beere and Lance Nielsen, broke into Tahana's apartment, causing him to flee in fear and ultimately fall to his death from the 12th floor balcony. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for the defendants, taking into account the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the appropriate starting point for the sentence, the degree of foreseeability in the case, and the personal aggravating and mitigating factors for each defendant. The court considered relevant precedents and the circumstances of the case to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendants. The court also heard victim impact statements from Tahana's family, which highlighted the severe and ongoing impact of his death.

In its reasoning, the court determined that the manslaughter charge was the appropriate lead charge and that the circumstances of the case warranted a starting point of four years and six months for the manslaughter charge, with an additional six months for the burglary charge. The court found that the defendants' actions were serious and aggravating, as they went to Tahana's home with the intention of robbing him. The court also considered the personal aggravating and mitigating factors for each defendant, taking into account their criminal history, prospects of rehabilitation, and other personal circumstances.

The court sentenced Amigo Jacobi Sinclair-Beere to four years and ten months' imprisonment for burglary and manslaughter, and Lance Nielsen to the same sentence for the same charges. The court found that both defendants shared equal responsibility and culpability for Tahana's death, and that the appropriate sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offending and the need to hold the defendants accountable for the harm caused.

Orders