Richards v The Queen - [2014] NZHC 1519

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-443-000014 [2014] NZHC 1519

BETWEEN
TODD ARCHIE RICHARDS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 30 June 2014

Appearances:

J Mooney for appellant
B Sweetman for respondent

Judgment:

2 July 2014

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Todd Archie Richards, pleaded guilty to:

(a) one charge of aggravated robbery pursuant to s 235(b) of the Crimes

Act 1961; and

(b)charges of possession of cannabis and possession of a utensil (methamphetamine pipe) (ss 7 and 13 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975), driving whilst disqualified and driving with excess breath alcohol (third or subsequent) (ss 32 and 56 Land Transport Act 1988) and breach of bail (s 38A Bail Act 2000).

[2] Mr Richards was sentenced by Judge Roberts in the District Court at New

Plymouth on 21 May 2014 to an overall term of imprisonment of three years and

RICHARDS v R [2014] NZHC 1519 [2 July 2014]

nine months.1 The Judge arrived at that sentence on the basis of a starting point sentence of four and a half years for the aggravated robbery charge plus an uplift of six months to take account of the other charges to which Mr Richards pleaded guilty and the fact that his aggravated robbery offending occurred whilst he was on bail for that other offending. The Judge then applied a 25 per cent discount for Mr Richards’ early guilty pleas.

[3] Mr Richards now challenges his sentence of three years and nine months as being manifestly excessive. He says the starting point (four and a half years) for the aggravated robbery offending was too high, and that he should have been granted some concession by reference to an offer of reparation he made involving assistance from his mother.

Mr Richards’ offending – the facts

[4] On Friday 21 March 2014 Mr Richards and two associates, Mr Rowan Pratt and Ms Codie Featonby, were in a vehicle driven by Ms Featonby at a local petrol station. Whilst they were there, Wayne Kevin Smith, the victim of the subsequent aggravated robbery, withdrew $300 in cash from an ATM machine on the forecourt of the service station.

[5] Mr Smith left the service station on foot. Mr Richards, Mr Pratt and Ms Featonby left by car. A short time later Mr Pratt got out of the vehicle, taking with him a 40 cm long, solid, timber chair leg. Shortly thereafter Mr Pratt approached Mr Smith from behind and struck him a hard blow to the back of his head using the chair leg. The initial blow opened up a large gash which began to bleed heavily. Mr Pratt struck Mr Smith twice more on the head before Mr Smith turned round and confronted him. A struggle ensued. During that struggle, Mr Pratt hit Mr Smith several more times with the chair leg. At some point in the attack, Mr Pratt lost control of the chair leg and Mr Smith and he fell to the ground fighting.

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 Richards v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Richards v The Queen [2014] NZHC 1519
Case: [2014] NZHC 1519
Decision Date: 2 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Todd Archie Richards appealed against his sentence for aggravated robbery and related charges, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The District Court had imposed a sentence of three years and nine months, applying a starting point of four and a half years for the aggravated robbery, and an uplift of six months for additional charges and the fact that the robbery occurred while he was on bail. The Court allowed a 25 per cent discount for early guilty pleas.

The central issues were whether the starting point for the aggravated robbery was appropriate and whether the offer of reparation made by Richards should have been taken into account. The Crown argued that the starting point was justified due to the severity of the violence and the victim's vulnerability. Richards contended that the starting point was too high, and the offer of reparation should have led to a further discount.

The Court concluded that the Crown's approach to the case was somewhat unclear, but this did not undermine the overall sentence. The Court found that the starting point, though stern, was not outside the appropriate range, especially given the high level of violence and the victim's vulnerability. The six-month uplift for other charges and the fact that the crime occurred while Richards was on bail was considered a relatively benign response. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence as appropriate.

Orders