REMUS PETERS AND THE KING - [2024] NZHC 3980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000587

[2024] NZHC 3980

BETWEEN
REMUS PETERS

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 2 December 2024

Counsel:

MJ English and KR Borich for Appellant EH Barnes for Respondent

Judgment:

20 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 20 December 2024 at 2 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland.
Public Defence Service, Waitākere.

PETERS v R [2024] NZHC 3980 [20 December 2024]

The appeal

[1] Remus Peters received a sentence of four years and seven months’ imprisonment for serious offending, including two aggravated robberies.1 Mr Peters appeals that sentence. The appeal must be allowed if there is an error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed.2 The overarching concern is whether the sentence is manifestly excessive rather than the way the sentence is composed.3

Background

[2] The facts were helpfully captured by Judge P J Sinclair at sentencing (on 27 September 2024):

[3] The summary of facts are as follows. For the first aggravated robbery, you and Dios Katoa and another unknown person, arrived outside the West Liquor Store in a stolen motor vehicle, on 15 April 2023 at around 8.35 pm. The three of you got out of the car and entered the store. All of you were wearing face coverings, you were wielding a large butcher’s knife. You approached Mr Finau, the shopkeeper who was in the store, pointing the knife towards him, in the vicinity of his face, from approximately one to two metres away and yelled: “Open up the cigs and give me all the money.”

[4] Dios and the other male followed closely behind you. Customers moved away from the door and into the corner of the store. You followed Mr Finau over to the cigarette cabinet, while Ms O’Connor, who was also assisting in the store, opened the cash register. You grabbed a tray containing approximately $2,000 worth of cigarettes from the cabinet and handed it to the third male. Dios took $965 cash from the cash register. You and Dios then took $1,500 worth of alcohol from the alcohol shelf. You all three left in the stolen motor vehicle.

[5] The second aggravated robbery offending occurred on 12 May 2023 at about 8.15. You and Dios arrived at the commercial address of Vapey’s Vape Store in Henderson, along with a third associate in a stolen car. The three of you went into the store through the main entrance. You pushed four people, Mr Shah, Mr Muneef, Mr Murugarajan and [R], who were customers at the store, into the back office. You were armed with a screwdriver in one hand and vice grips in the other. You shouted at the four people and continued to move them backwards, until they entered a separate kitchen area.

[6] One of them managed to go upstairs and hide from you, the remaining three complainants attempted to follow him upstairs.…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read REMUS PETERS AND THE KING and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 3980
Decision Date: 20 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Remus Peters appeals against his sentence of four years and seven months’ imprisonment for serious offending, including two aggravated robberies. The appeal was heard by Downs J on 2 December 2024, with judgment delivered on 20 December 2024. The appeal hinges on whether the sentence imposed by the original Judge was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues centre around the appropriateness of the starting point for the sentences of the aggravated robberies and other related offences. Mr Peters’ counsel argued that the starting point for the aggravated robberies should not exceed six years’ imprisonment, and the remaining offences should not attract an uplift of more than 12 months. The Crown contended that the Judge correctly assessed the severity of the offending and applied the totality principle appropriately.

The Court considered the precedent set by the Full Court in R v Mako, which provides guidance on sentencing for aggravated robberies. The Court found that the Judge appropriately applied the totality principle and set a starting point of seven years for the aggravated robberies, which was in line with the notional starting point of around 10 years. The Court also found that the 10-month uplift for the remaining offences was justified, given the seriousness of the burglary and motor vehicle-related offences.

The Court noted that the Judge had carefully considered Mr Peters’ personal circumstances, including his adverse childhood experiences, substance use, and youth, and appropriately discounted the sentence by 15% for these factors, along with a modest 10% discount for his youth. The Court concluded that the sentence, while substantial, was commensurate with the gravity of Mr Peters’ offending.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The Court thanked counsel for their submissions.

Orders