R v Warren - [2017] NZHC 2889

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

CRI-2016-091-002629 [2017] NZHC 2889

THE QUEEN

v

TONY RICHARD WARREN

Counsel:
E M FitzHerbert for Crown

E A Hall for Defendant

Sentence:

23 November 2017

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Warren, you appear for sentencing having pleaded guilty to three charges of aggravated robbery.1 This morning I shall:

(1) summarise your offending;

(2) explain the starting point I have adopted;

(3) explain the adjustments that I will make to the starting point; and

(5) explain the sentence I will impose.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 235(c). Maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

R v WARREN [2017] NZHC 2889 [23 November 2017]

Your offending

Tairangi Dairy

[2] On 2 September 2015 at approximately 7.47 pm your co-offenders

Mr Ah Young and another person picked you up in a stolen Subaru vehicle and you drove to the Tairangi Dairy in Porirua. Two of you entered the dairy while one of your co-offenders waited in the vehicle outside. You went into the dairy wearing balaclavas, bright orange high visibility jackets, dark trousers and gloves in an attempt to conceal your identities. The owner of the dairy, Mr Cheung, was standing behind the counter. Your co-offender pointed a pistol at his head. Before the victim could walk to the cash register he picked it up off the counter and broke it from the power cable to which it was attached. You left the dairy with the cash register and its contents of approximately $50.00. You were driven away in the stolen Subaru.

Clockwork Gold Bar

[3] On the same day at about 11.15 pm you and Mr Ulutupu entered Clockwork Gold Bar in Tawa. Two of the staff members had closed the bar to the public and were about to leave. One staff member was met by Mr Ulutupu at the back door, who was holding a pistol. Mr Ulutupu pushed the staff member back into the bar. You entered the bar around the same time and both staff members were marched back inside the bar area. You asked the staff members to take out their phones and put them on the bar. They were then forced to lie down on the floor.

[4] Mr Ulutupu ordered one of the staff members to open up the safe in the office. When the safe was opened he was pushed and kicked to the ground by Mr Ulutupu. You emptied the safe of approximately $42,726. You and Mr Ulutupu took one of the staff member’s keys for a Ford Falcon vehicle, their wallet, and two bottles of alcohol from the bar fridge. It appears you also stole a cell phone. You left the bar in the stolen Ford Falcon and your co-offender Mr Ah Young followed you in the stolen Subaru.

[5] The Ford Falcon was subsequently located by police and a black imitation firearm was located inside it. The Subaru was also subsequently…

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 Warren

Details

AGLC: R v Warren [2017] NZHC 2889
Case: [2017] NZHC 2889
Decision Date: 23 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Tony Richard Warren faced sentencing for three counts of aggravated robbery. The court considered the defendant's involvement in three separate incidents, including robberies at the Tairangi Dairy, Clockwork Gold Bar, and Sandbar Pub. The court identified aggravating factors such as the use of disguises, weapons, and multiple offenders. The defendant pleaded guilty, which led to a discount in the starting point for sentencing. After considering personal mitigating factors, including the defendant's efforts to address drug addiction and his participation in restorative justice, the court imposed a sentence of six years and five months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently.

The court began by outlining the defendant's involvement in the aggravated robberies, which included targeting commercial premises, using weapons, and causing significant emotional and psychological harm to the victims. The defendant's participation in planning and executing the robberies, his use of disguises, and the targeting of premises that posed increased risks to the public were all considered aggravating factors. The court also took into account the total value of the stolen cash and property. The defendant's previous convictions for dishonesty offences and possessing an offensive weapon were considered, but no uplift to the starting point was deemed appropriate. The court allowed a discount for the defendant's guilty plea and personal mitigating factors, including his engagement in restorative justice, efforts to address drug addiction, and genuine remorse. The court imposed a sentence of six years and five months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently, taking into account the totality of the defendant's offending and the mitigating factors presented.

Orders