Raumati v The Queen - [2020] NZHC 703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-419-17

[2020] NZHC 703

BETWEEN
LINK RAUMATI

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 3 April 2020 (by AVL/telephone)

Counsel:

M J James for Appellant

A S Alcock for Respondent

Judgment:

7 April 2020

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 April 2020 at 4:00 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor (Hamilton) for Respondent

RAUMATI v R [2020] NZHC 703 [7 April 2020]

Introduction

[1] On 25 February 2020 Judge RLB Spear sentenced Mr Raumati to two years 11 months’ imprisonment.1 Mr Raumati now appeals that sentence contending it is manifestly excessive.

[2] My task is to decide whether the Judge made an error such that a lesser sentence should be imposed.

Background

[3] Further to a contact made on an online dating application, the complainant drove from Hamilton to Huntly to meet a young woman. At the address he was given he met the young woman and her sister. The complainant drove them to a restaurant, bought them a meal and afterwards returned to the address to drop them off. Shortly after arriving back at the address Mr Raumati and his friend, Mr Strickland (both 24 years of age), approached the vehicle. Mr Raumati got into the front passenger seat of the car and Mr Strickland got into the back passenger seat. The two women also got into the back seat. Mr Strickland was wearing a bandana covering his face so only his eyes were visible.

[4] As soon as he got into the car Mr Raumati grabbed the back of the complainant’s neck with his hands and demanded the complainant drive them around. Mr Strickland joined in the demands from the back seat and abused the complainant with a racist epithet.

[5] The complainant complied and began driving. Mr Raumati threatened him with violence unless the complainant drove to an ATM. Mr Raumati told the complainant that the complainant was making him angry and he appeared to become enraged. The complainant was fearful.

[6] The complainant duly went to an ATM. Mr Raumati walked the complainant to the ATM so that the complainant would withdraw cash. The complainant withdrew
$60 and gave it to Mr Raumati.

1 R v Raumati [2020] NZDC 3344.

[7] One of the females from the vehicle threatened the complainant with a complaint of rape and demanded money for herself. The complainant gave her another
$60.

[8] The complainant, Mr Raumati and the female concerned got back into the vehicle. The complainant asked to be let go. He was instead made to keep driving the group and he did so stopping at locations as directed so that Mr Strickland could buy cannabis and Mr Raumati could buy alcohol.

[9] The complainant told the group he needed to go to Hamilton because he had a job to go to. He drove the group to his home in Hamilton. When they arrived, Mr Raumati searched…

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 [2020] NZHC 703
Case: [2020] NZHC 703
Decision Date: 7 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Link Raumati appeals his sentence of two years and eleven months’ imprisonment. Raumati argues that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by Brewer J in the High Court of New Zealand. The appeal was dismissed.

The court was required to decide whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive. This involved examining the District Court’s starting point for the sentence, the uplift for remaining charges, the uplift for previous convictions and the discount for guilty pleas. The court considered whether each of these components of the sentence was within the range available to the sentencing judge.

The court found that the starting point of three years was within the range available to the District Court. This was because the robbery was aggravated by the fact that it was committed with accomplices and that the complainant was kept in detention after the robbery. The court found that the uplift for remaining charges and previous convictions was also within the range available to the District Court. The court found that the discount for guilty pleas was appropriate given that the pleas were not entered at the first available opportunity.

The appeal was dismissed.

No specific orders were made.

Orders