R v Thomson - [2021] NZHC 2304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2019-287-000047

[2021] NZHC 2304

THE QUEEN

v

ZENYATA JASON THOMSON

Hearing: 2 September 2021

Appearances:

R Jenson for Crown

M J Hine for Defendant

Judgment:

2 September 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v THOMSON [2021] NZHC 2304 [2 September 2021]

[1] Mr Thomson, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to six charges of aggravated robbery,1 two charges of dangerous driving,2 one charge of failing to stop for red and blue flashing lights3 and one charge of being in unlawful possession of a firearm.4 The most serious of these are the charges of aggravated robbery. As you are no doubt aware, this charge carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

[2] You are to be sentenced in this Court because your previous convictions for similar offending mean that the charges of aggravated robbery are “third strike” offences. Only this Court has the jurisdiction to deal with charges in that category.

Facts

[3] You have pleaded guilty on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. This records that all the charges were laid as a result of a series of incidents that occurred as you drove around the Kawerau and Whakatāne townships on 15 and 16 October 2019.

Charge 1: Aggravated robbery

[4] At approximately 3 am on 15 October 2019 you went to a residential address in Kawerau, where you uplifted a male occupant of the address. You told this person to come with you because you wanted to do some “missions”. He then travelled with you and an associate to another address in Kawerau. On arrival you told him to go and knock on the back door and have the occupant of the address come to the garage. He did what you asked, but nobody answered the door. You then drove the complainant back to the address from which he had been picked up. On the journey to his address you produced a sawn-off shotgun, held it to the complainant’s head and told him to take his gear off or you would “smash” him. The complainant then handed over his Nike Air Max shoes, a gold watch and a jacket. Before you let the complainant leave the vehicle you told him that if he “snitched” you would find him.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 235(c).
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b).
3      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52A(1)(a)(ii), 52A(5) and 114(2).
4      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1).

Charges 8 and 9: Aggravated robbery

[5] At about 9 pm the following evening you were driving a motor vehicle in the central business district of Kawerau. You were accompanied by two juvenile associates and were again in possession of the sawn-off shotgun.

[6] You approached a parked vehicle and confronted the occupants with the sawn- off shotgun. You then took control of their vehicle and drove it around Kawerau with the occupants still in the vehicle. Thereafter you…

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 Thomson

Details

AGLC: R v Thomson [2021] NZHC 2304
Case: [2021] NZHC 2304
Decision Date: 2 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Tauranga Registry, the defendant, Zenyata Jason Thomson, was sentenced for multiple charges, including six counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of dangerous driving, failing to stop for red and blue flashing lights, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Thomson pleaded guilty to all charges, which stemmed from a series of incidents in the Kawerau and Whakatāne townships in October 2019. The court had to decide whether the mandatory 14-year sentence for aggravated robbery, as a third strike offence, should be served without parole.

The court considered the aggravating factors of the offence, including the use of a firearm during the robberies, the psychological impact on the victims, and the dangerous driving involved. However, the court also noted that the firearm was not loaded and that the offending was opportunistic rather than premeditated. The court further examined the defendant's history of violent offending, his troubled background, and his high risk of reoffending. Despite this, the court found that a sentence of 14 years imprisonment without parole would be grossly disproportionate, particularly given the defendant's young age and the significant escalation in the seriousness of his offending.

Ultimately, the court determined that it would be manifestly unjust to require Thomson to serve the entire 14-year sentence without parole. Instead, he will be eligible for parole after serving one-third of the sentence, or four years and eight months. Thomson was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for each count of aggravated robbery, 18 months for unlawful possession of a firearm, two months for dangerous driving, and a six-month disqualification from holding a driver's licence. All sentences are to be served concurrently, making the effective sentence 14 years imprisonment.

Orders