R v Tereora - [2014] NZHC 772

ORDERTHAT THE IDENTITY AND ADDRESS OF THE VICTIM OF THE AGGRAVATED ROBBERY IS NOT TO BE REPORTED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-092-008110 [2014] NZHC 772

THE QUEEN

v

ALEX TEREORA

Charges:
Plea: Hearing:

Aggravated robbery x1;

Attempting to use firearm against a constable x1; Assault with a weapon x1;

Guilty

14 April 2014

Appearances:

I M Brookie for Crown
S Moala for Defendant

Sentenced:

14 April 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Moala Merrick, Auckland
Copy to: IM Brookie, Auckland

R v TEREORA [2014] NZHC 772 [14 April 2014]

[1] Alex Tereora you are for sentence having pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated robbery, assault with a weapon and attempting to use a firearm against a constable in the course of his duty. The most serious charge is that of aggravated robbery. It carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

[2] You pleaded guilty to the above charges on 11 February this year, which was the second day of an alternative trial on these charges. I have set out the background to how your guilty pleas were entered and the process followed in a separate minute, which dealt with your application for an adjournment of the sentence this morning. I am conscious that I am sentencing you this morning without the benefit of a pre- sentence report, but again the reasons for that and why that has come about are covered in that minute.

[3] I however make the point that although there is no pre-sentence report before the Court your counsel in her very full and helpful submissions has given the Court a great deal of background to you and your personal circumstances, including the sort of information that would be contained in a pre-sentence report. If I might say so at this stage Mr Tereora, you are very fortunate to have had the assistance of counsel of Ms Moala’s understanding and compassion. She has assisted you greatly to this stage and perhaps may be able to assist you in the future but that is for another day. But I do wish to place on record the Court’s appreciation for her assistance in a professional way to both you and the Court in the way that she has dealt with matters.

[4] I turn to the offending for which you are to be sentenced this morning. The summary of facts, which you have agreed to in relation to that offending discloses that at some time before half past six in the evening on 3 June 2012 you smashed a lounge window of the complainant’s home in Papatoetoe and accompanied by at least two others entered the premises. You were all wearing balaclavas and fingerless gloves. At about half past six the complainant, a 51 year old male, arrived at his home address in Papatoetoe to find the car that you had arrived in parked in his driveway. As he was parking his car he was grabbed out of his car and dragged…

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 Tereora

Details

AGLC: R v Tereora [2014] NZHC 772
Case: [2014] NZHC 772
Decision Date: 14 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alex Tereora was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand after pleading guilty to charges of aggravated robbery, assault with a weapon, and attempting to use a firearm against a police officer. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the nature and severity of the crimes, the defendant's criminal history, and other relevant factors. The primary legal issue was to determine the appropriate starting point and total sentence for the defendant's crimes, taking into account the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and the protection of the community. The court also had to consider the defendant's personal circumstances, including his history of drug addiction and troubled family background, as well as the impact of his guilty plea.

The court found that the starting point for the aggravated robbery charge should be six and a half years, with uplifts of fifteen months for the assault with a weapon and twenty-one months for the attempt to use a firearm against a police officer. The court then considered the defendant's previous offending history, which demonstrated a propensity for serious violent offences, and determined that an uplift of eight months was appropriate. The court also took into account the totality principle, which led to a reduction of the notional starting point from nine years, eight months to nine years. The court then considered the defendant's personal circumstances, finding that the only mitigating factor was his guilty plea. The court applied a credit of nearly 10% for the guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of eight years and ten months imprisonment. The court also imposed a minimum non-parole period of five years.

In conclusion, Alex Tereora was sentenced to eight years and ten months imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of five years. The court considered the severity of the crimes, the defendant's criminal history, and his personal circumstances in determining the appropriate sentence. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence, denunciation, and the protection of the community in its sentencing decision.

Orders