Raumati v The Queen - [2012] NZCA 571

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA442/2012
[2012] NZCA 571

BETWEEN PATRICK RAUMATI
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 4 December 2012

Court: Randerson, Harrison and Stevens JJ

Counsel: R A B Barnsdale for Appellant
J E Mildenhall for Respondent

Judgment: 10 December 2012 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against sentence is allowed in part.
BThe terms of imprisonment on all charges are confirmed, as well as their respective concurrent and cumulative effects. Hence the overall sentence of four years and three months imprisonment stands.
CThe appeal against the length of the minimum period of imprisonment is allowed. The minimum period of two years six months is quashed and in its place a minimum period of imprisonment of two years and four months is substituted in relation to the charge of burglary on 14 July 2011.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Stevens J)

Introduction

The appellant, Mr Raumati, was sentenced by Judge Connell in the District Court at Hamilton on five charges, including three of burglary, to an effective sentence of four years and three months imprisonment.[1] A minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of two years and six months was also imposed. The appellant appeals against the overall sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive.
[1] R v Raumati DC Hamilton CRI-2011-019-5277, 28 June 2012 [sentencing decision].
For the appellant, Mr Barnsdale accepted that there could be no challenge to any of the base sentences or their respective concurrent and cumulative effects. The appeal focussed solely on the imposition of the MPI and its length.

Factual background

The lead charge of burglary and a charge of assault with a weapon arose out of an incident that occurred very late in the evening of 13/14 July 2011, when the appellant (who was aged 46) and two much younger co-offenders went to the address of the complainant and his family in Huntly. The appellant mistakenly believed that this complainant had assaulted his sister. The appellant parked his truck in the driveway at around 11.30 pm and approached the complainant’s house. One of the co‑offenders held a hammer, the other held an axe. The three men walked to the front door and started banging and kicking it.
When the complainant opened the front door, the appellant and his co‑offenders barged in, restraining the complainant against the wall with the handle of the hammer held against his throat. The attack stopped when the complainant persuaded the attackers that he had not harassed the appellant’s sister. The complainant’s female partner and their children were also at the address. The partner was terrified by the ordeal. Following trial by jury the appellant was found guilty of both of these charges.
A few days earlier, on 11 July 2011, the appellant had committed another burglary in Hamilton. On this occasion the appellant, accompanied by two associates, drove his truck during daylight hours to the enclosed yard of a local business. They smashed the glass and wooden framing…

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 Raumati v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Raumati v The Queen [2012] NZCA 571
Case: [2012] NZCA 571
Decision Date: 10 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal by Patrick Raumati against his sentence. Raumati was convicted of multiple charges, including three instances of burglary and one of assault with a weapon. The District Court had sentenced Raumati to an overall term of imprisonment of four years and three months, with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of two years and six months. Raumati appealed the length of the MPI, arguing it was excessively long.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the District Court's imposition of the MPI was justified and, if so, whether its length was appropriate. The Sentencing Act 2002 allows for the imposition of a minimum term of imprisonment if the sentencing Judge is satisfied it is required to meet the purposes of sentencing. The court needed to determine if the Judge had properly exercised this discretion and if the length of the MPI was within the jurisdictional limits.

The Court of Appeal held that the imposition of a minimum term was justified to hold Raumati accountable, to denounce the offending, and to deter him and others from similar conduct. However, the MPI of two years and six months was not within the jurisdictional limits, as it exceeded the two-thirds limit of the base sentence. The court substituted a more appropriate MPI of two years and four months, which aligns with the maximum available under the Sentencing Act. The Court confirmed the overall sentence of four years and three months imprisonment remained unchanged, with the adjusted MPI related to the lead offence of burglary on 14 July 2011.

In summary, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, substituting a more appropriate MPI while confirming the overall sentence. The appeal against the length of the minimum period of imprisonment was allowed, and a new minimum period of imprisonment of two years and four months was substituted.

Orders