R v Stevens - [2023] NZHC 144

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2022-069-294

[2023] NZHC 144

THE KING

v

STEVENS

Hearing: 8 February 2023

Appearances:

T Afoa for the Crown

S Mills for the Defendant

Sentence:

8 February 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF ROBINSON J

Solicitors/Counsel: Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua Lance Lawson, Rotorua

THE KING v STEVENS [2023] NZHC 144 [8 February 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mr Stevens, as I am sure you know you’re here today to be sentenced after having pleaded guilty in the District Court to charges of aggravated robbery,1 burglary2 and breach of your release conditions.3

[2] Your matter was transferred to this Court to consider whether a sentence of periodic detention might be appropriate. Justice Lang first reviewed the file and determined that there was no real prospect of preventive detention in this case given the nature of your offending and the sentence that would otherwise be imposed. So Justice Lang didn’t order the reports that I would need to have before me to impose a sentence of preventive detention. I completely agree with Justice Lang, and I will sentence you this morning in accordance with ordinary sentencing principles.

Approach to sentencing

[3] So Mr Stevens the first thing I have to do in deciding your sentence is to fix a “starting point” for your sentence and that will be based on the seriousness of your offending.4 Then I will consider whether the sentence should go up or down depending on personal circumstances, your personal circumstances and that produce the end sentence.

[4] So I’m going to begin by just briefly describing your offending as set out in the summary of facts to which you have pleaded guilty. I know that your aware of what happened, but I need to set this out because others are interested too.

Facts

[5] So, dealing first with the breach of release condition. After you were released from custody on 1 February last year you were subject to standard conditions for six months. Those conditions included that you must report to your Probation Officer as and when required. You did that but only for a very short time, and you did not report

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 235(c). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 231(1)(a). Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 96(1). Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
4      Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, [2020] 3 NZLR 583.

to your probation officer on 28 February 2022, when you were required to do so. And you didn’t contact Community Corrections to provide a reasonable excuse for not doing so. It turns out that instead you left Auckland where you had been sleeping rough, and caught a bus to Taupō.

[6] So, this brings us to the burglary charge. An amended summary of facts records that you were in Taupō in the days leading up to the 31st March 2022. At some point you entered a…

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 Stevens

Details

AGLC: R v Stevens [2023] NZHC 144
Case: [2023] NZHC 144
Decision Date: 8 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The King v Stevens, the defendant pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated robbery, burglary, and breach of release conditions. The matter was brought before the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing, following a transfer from the District Court to consider if a sentence of periodic detention was appropriate. Justice Lang reviewed the case file and determined that preventive detention was not applicable, and Justice Robinson agreed with this assessment, proceeding with sentencing under ordinary principles.

The court began by establishing a starting point for the sentence based on the seriousness of the offenses. The defendant's actions included breaching release conditions by failing to report to his probation officer, squatting in a holiday home, and committing an aggravated robbery at a petrol station with a knife. The court noted the significant fear and impact on the shop attendant during the robbery. The defendant's personal circumstances, including a long history of offending and significant mental health issues, were also considered. The court determined that a starting point of three and a half years for the aggravated robbery charge was appropriate, with an uplift of three months for the other charges, resulting in a starting point of three years and nine months imprisonment.

After considering mitigating factors, such as the defendant's mental health issues and challenging upbringing, the court applied a 50% discount to the starting point, leading to a final sentence of 22 months imprisonment for the aggravated robbery, three months for the burglary, and one month for the breach of release conditions, to be served concurrently. Justice Robinson emphasized the need for the defendant to receive treatment and support upon release, highlighting the importance of stable accommodation, social support, and mental health care.

The court concluded by imposing the sentences and setting out the post-release conditions for the defendant.

Orders