R v Young - [2017] NZHC 2890

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 2890

THE QUEEN

v

MIKE JUNIOR AH YOUNG

Counsel:
E M FitzHerbert for Crown

P A C Foster for Defendant

Sentence:

23 November 2017

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Ah Young, you appear for sentencing having pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery1 and one charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle.2 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

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 235(c). Maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 226(1). Maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.

R v AH YOUNG [2017] NZHC 2890 [23 November 2017]

(4) explain the sentence that I will impose.

Your offending

Unlawful taking of a motor vehicle

[2] On 2 September 2015, you stole a green Subaru motor vehicle from outside the

Arlington apartments in Wellington. That vehicle was valued at approximately

$1,500. Using the stolen vehicle, you collected Mr Warren and another person at approximately 7.47 pm and drove to the Tairangi Dairy in Porirua.

Aggravated robbery – Tairangi Dairy

[3] You and Mr Warren entered the dairy while your other co-offender, waited outside in the vehicle outside. You were wearing balaclavas, bright orange high visibility jackets, dark trousers and gloves in an attempt to conceal your identities.

[4] You pointed a black pistol at the owner of the dairy’s head and said “Give me the money”. Before the victim could walk to the cash register, you and your co- offender pulled the cash register off the counter. The cash register containing approximately $50 was taken. You were driven away in the stolen vehicle.

Aggravated robbery – Clockwork Gold Bar

[5] At about 11.15 pm on 2 September 2015, you and your co-offenders arrived at the Clockwork Gold Bar in Tawa. Two staff had closed the bar to the public and were about to leave. One staff member opened the back door and was met by your co- offender Mr Ulutupu, who was holding a black pistol. He pushed the staff member and said “back inside old man”. Mr Warren also entered the bar. The staff were marched to the bar area and your co-offenders asked them to take out their phones. Both staff members were forced to lay down on the floor. Mr Ulutupu ordered a staff member to open a nearby safe and he was pushed and kicked to the ground. Mr Warren emptied the safe of approximately $42,726.

[6] Your co-offenders took one of the staff member’s keys, his wallet and two bottles of alcohol from the bar. They left in a stolen grey Ford Falcon. You followed

in the stolen Subaru vehicle. Police later located inside the vehicles a black imitation firearm, an orange high visibility jacket and a single rubber glove.

[7] Reparation is sought for the…

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 Young

Details

AGLC: R v Young [2017] NZHC 2890
Case: [2017] NZHC 2890
Decision Date: 23 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mike Junior Ah Young has been found guilty of two charges of aggravated robbery and one charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for these offences, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the crimes, as well as the defendant's personal circumstances and any mitigating factors. The court began by outlining the details of the defendant's offending, which involved two separate instances of aggravated robbery and the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. The court then considered the starting point for the sentence, which was set at six years and nine months' imprisonment based on the seriousness of the crimes and the need for consistency with sentences received by co-offenders. The court also took into account any aggravating or mitigating factors, such as the defendant's previous offending history, personal circumstances, and remorse. After considering all of these factors, the court imposed a sentence of five years and four months' imprisonment, with the sentences for the aggravated robbery charges and the unlawfully taking a motor vehicle charge running concurrently.

The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of considering both the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the defendant's personal circumstances and any mitigating factors, when determining an appropriate sentence. The court also emphasised the need for consistency with sentences received by co-offenders, particularly in cases involving multiple offenders. Overall, the court's decision reflects a balanced approach to sentencing that takes into account both the seriousness of the crimes and the individual circumstances of the defendant.

Orders