R v Tuku-Inamata - [2014] NZHC 2654

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-055-1321 [2014] NZHC 2654

THE QUEEN

v

ROBERT TUKU-INAMATA

Appearances:
M R Walker for the Crown

B Sellars and C Frederic for the Prisoner

Sentence:

29 October 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF ELLIS J

Counsel/Solicitors:
S McColgan, Meredith Connell, Auckland
B Sellars, Barrister, Auckland
C Frederic, Barrister, Auckland

R v TUKU-INAMATA [2014] NZHC 2654 [29 October 2014]

[1] Mr Tuku-Inamata, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated robbery and it is for that offence that I must sentence you today. The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment.1

Facts

[2] I need first to talk about what actually happened. On the afternoon of 25

May 2013, you and five associates met by arrangement at an address in Manurewa for the purposes of organising a robbery of the Whitehouse Tavern in Papakura. That evening, two of your associates went to Remuera to steal a car to use in the robbery. The car they took was valued at $2,000, and someone else stole another car.

[3] Back in Manurewa, you and the others armed yourselves with various weapons, including a loaded sawn-off pump action shotgun, a crow bar, large screwdrivers and a large bit drill. You put on face masks, hooded sweatshirts and caps. You also took plastic ties for the purpose of restraining your victims. You say you did not know about the gun when you all started out but you certainly realised it was being used a bit later on, I think.

[4] You drove in the stolen cars to the car park of the tavern and waited there for about two hours. At 10.45pm the six of you entered the tavern, brandishing your weapons. You ordered the customers and staff to lie on the ground and then tied their wrists.

[5] You all abused and threatened the staff and customers. One member of staff was threatened with the gun and told that she would have her head blown off if she did not comply with your demands. Another staff member was punched and kicked, suffering injuries that required hospitalisation.

[6] The six of you took the staff and customers’ cell phones and cash from the
cash registers and two tills. The bar manager managed to slip out the back entrance of the bar and called the Police.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 235.

[7] You all ran away from the tavern through the back entrance and threw stolen items over the fence, before climbing through properties to where one of the cars was parked. As you approached the intersection of the road, you were seen by a Police car, which followed your car until you drove onto the Southern Motorway heading north. The pursuit was abandoned then for safety reasons.

[8] A short time later, the car crashed on O’Connell St in Manurewa. You and one of your associates, made your way to a nearby address, where you convinced the occupant to call a taxi. The taxi arrived and picked…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Tuku-Inamata and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 2654
Decision Date: 29 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Tuku-Inamata appealed against his sentence for aggravated robbery. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided over by Justice Rebecca Ellis, heard the case. The primary legal issue was determining the appropriate sentence for the appellant's crime of aggravated robbery, which involved planning, use of weapons, and causing severe trauma to the victims. The court considered the appellant's age, his previous convictions, his participation in restorative justice, and his potential for rehabilitation.

Justice Ellis commenced by establishing the starting point for the sentence based on the aggravating factors of the crime, such as the use of weapons and the planning involved. She then considered personal mitigating factors, including the appellant's age, his limited criminal history at the time of the offence, and his recent participation in restorative justice and his expressed desire for rehabilitation. The court found a discount of two and a half years to be appropriate, resulting in a final sentence of five and a half years imprisonment.

In conclusion, the High Court sentenced Robert Tuku-Inamata to five and a half years imprisonment for the charge of aggravated robbery. The court balanced the severity of the crime with the appellant's potential for rehabilitation and his personal circumstances, ultimately arriving at a sentence that reflects both the need for punishment and the opportunity for the appellant to address his underlying issues and reform.

Orders