R v Wellington - [2014] NZHC 2993

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2013-055-001321 [2014] NZHC 2993

THE QUEEN

v

TRENT WELLINGTON BOWEN MARTIN

Hearing: 27 November 2014

Appearances:

S McColgan for the Crown
I Jayanandan for the Defendant Wellington
M Mason for the Defendant Martin

Date:

27 November 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J

R v WELLINGTON & ANOR [2014] NZHC 2993 [27 November 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Wellington and Mr Martin, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand.

[2] You appear for sentence today, having been found guilty by a jury of a number of charges arising out of the aggravated robbery of the Whitehouse Tavern in Papakura in May 2013.

[3] You have both been found guilty of the following:

(a) One charge of aggravated robbery. That is an offence pursuant to s 235(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.

(b)Five charges of kidnapping. Kidnapping is an offence pursuant to s 209(b) of the Act. The maximum penalty is one of 14 years’ imprisonment on each charge.

(c) Two charges of threatening to kill. This is an offence pursuant to s 306 of the Act, and the maximum penalty is one of seven years’ imprisonment on each charge.

(d)Two charges of conversion. This is an offence pursuant to s 226(1)(b) of the Act and the maximum penalty is one of seven years’ imprisonment, again on each charge.

[4] Mr Wellington, you have also been found guilty of one charge of aggravated injury. Aggravated injury is an offence pursuant to s 191(2) of the Act and the maximum penalty is one of three years’ imprisonment.

Background Facts

[5] On the afternoon of 25 May 2013, the two of you, along with four others, met at an address in Manurewa. At that meeting, the six of you discussed robbing the Whitehouse Tavern. Three members of the group then set out to Remuera to steal

two motor vehicles to use as transport in the robbery. When the members of the group returned to Manurewa with the stolen vehicles, you armed yourselves with a range of weapons, including a loaded sawn-off pump-action shotgun, a crowbar, large screwdrivers and a large drill bit. You put on heavy clothing, including hooded sweatshirts, and caps. You took face masks and balaclavas with you and also some plastic cable ties that you could use to restrain any people you might find at the tavern.

[6] You then travelled to the tavern in the two stolen vehicles. When you arrived, the tavern was crowded, because there was a quiz evening on. You spent some time waiting in the carpark until the tavern cleared. At approximately
10.45 pm, you burst into the tavern brandishing your weapons. You were all wearing masks or balaclavas to conceal your identities.

[7] There were three staff present, and a small number of customers. Unbeknown to you, one of the staff – the duty manager – managed to flee. He went to a neighbour to make…

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 Wellington

Details

AGLC: R v Wellington [2014] NZHC 2993
Case: [2014] NZHC 2993
Decision Date: 27 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Wellington and Martin, the defendants were convicted of multiple charges stemming from the aggravated robbery of the Whitehouse Tavern in Papakura. The defendants were found guilty of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, threatening to kill, and conversion. Wellington was additionally convicted of aggravated injury. The case was heard and sentenced by Wylie J in the High Court of New Zealand. The legal issues revolved around determining the appropriate starting points for sentencing, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors, and ensuring consistency with sentences passed on co-offenders.

Wylie J considered the premeditation, the number of offenders, the use of disguises and weapons, the number of victims, the use of violence, and the degree of harm to the victims as aggravating factors. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offending and the need for consistency in sentencing with co-offenders. The judge applied the relevant tariff case of R v Mako and other relevant decisions to set the starting points. Wellington's starting point was set at eight years and six months due to his higher culpability, while Martin's starting point was set at seven years and six months.

Personal mitigating factors were also considered. Wylie J allowed Wellington a discount of 21 months for his youth and compliance with bail conditions, resulting in a sentence of six years and nine months for aggravated robbery, four years for each kidnapping charge, two years for each threatening to kill charge, one year for each conversion charge, and two years for aggravated injury, all to be served concurrently. Martin was given a discount of three months for his restrictive bail conditions, resulting in a sentence of seven years and three months for aggravated robbery, four years for each kidnapping charge, two years for each threatening to kill charge, and one year for each conversion charge, all to be served concurrently. No minimum term of imprisonment was sought or imposed.

The final orders of the court involved the sentencing of the defendants for their respective charges, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors, and ensuring consistency with sentences passed on co-offenders.

Orders