Legal Research
Cases
Riini v Police

Riini v Police

Case [2016] NZHC 2218 19 September 2016

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Premeditated Offences

Deterrent Sentences

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-252 [2016] NZHC 2218

BETWEEN
ORLANDO RIINI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 19 September 2016

Appearances:

CF Dunne for Appellant
AL McConachy for Respondent

Judgment:

19 September 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

Riini v New Zealand Police [2016] NZHC 2218 [19 September 2016]

[1] On 14 July 2016, Judge E P Paul in the District Court at Waitakere sentenced Mr Orlando Riini to a total of two years and three months’ imprisonment for a variety of offences, including serious thefts.1 Mr Riini now appeals against his sentence.

[2] The offences involved were three charges of theft,2 one charge of shoplifting (under $500),3 four charges of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle,4 one charge of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle5 and two charges of intentional damage.6

Facts

[3] The various instances of offending were as follows:

(a) On 18 August 2015, at around 11:15 am, Mr Riini entered Onehunga Jewellers in Onehunga and asked to try on a watch valued at $450. He immediately left the shop without paying for the watch. This led to a charge of shoplifting.

(b)On the night of the 24/25 August 2015, Mr Riini took a Mazda motor vehicle parked outside a home in Morningside, Auckland. That led to a charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle.

(c) On 29 August 2015 at 4:11 pm, Mr Riini entered Michael Hill Jewellers in Takapuna disguised in a balaclava and armed with a claw hammer. He smashed the glass tops of two display cabinets and took multiple items of jewellery with a total value of $15,000.00. The jewellery has not been recovered. He fled the shop in a silver Mazda Atenza which was driven by an unknown person. The Mazda had
been stolen from an address in Sandringham the previous day. This

1      Riini v Police [2016] NZDC 13173.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 219(1)(a); maximum penalty, seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, s 219 and 223(d); maximum penalty, three months’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act, s 226(1); maximum penalty, seven years’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act, s 226; maximum penalty, seven years’ imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act, s 269(2)(a); maximum penalty, seven years’ imprisonment.

led to charges of theft, causing intentional damage, and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle.

(d)On the night of 14/15 September 2015, Mr Riini took a Mitsubishi motor vehicle parked outside a home in Avondale, Auckland. For that he was charged with unlawfully taking a motor vehicle.

(e) During the day of 16 September 2015, Mr Riini took a Mazda Atenza motor vehicle parked outside a work address in Mt Wellington. He was charged with unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle.

(f) At 8.10 pm on 17 September 2015, Mr Riini entered a Vodafone shop in New Lynn, Auckland. He approached a table, on which sat two Samsung S6 display model phones, secured by cables. The phones had a total value of $2,400. He ripped the phones from the table, breaking the cables, and left…

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 Riini v Police

Details

AGLC: Riini v Police [2016] NZHC 2218
Case: [2016] NZHC 2218
Decision Date: 19 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Riini v Police [2016] NZHC 2218 concerns an appeal by Orlando Riini against his sentence, which was imposed by Judge E P Paul in the District Court at Waitakere. The appellant was convicted of multiple charges, including theft, shoplifting, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, and causing intentional damage. The court was required to decide whether the starting point and the overall sentence imposed were excessive and whether there was a justifiable disparity between the sentence of the appellant and that of his co-offender, Mr McLaughlin.

The court first considered whether the starting point of three years' imprisonment was excessive. The court noted that the thefts were premeditated, involved the use of disguises and weapons, caused serious damage, and put the public at risk. The court found that the starting point was within the available sentencing range and did not consider it excessive. The court also reviewed the discounts applied to the sentence and concluded that while the discount for guilty pleas was appropriate, a discount for youth was not warranted given the appellant's history of escalating criminal behavior.

The court then examined whether there was a justifiable disparity between the sentences of the appellant and his co-offender, Mr McLaughlin. The court found that the disparity was reasonable and justifiable, as the appellant had a more extensive criminal history and was convicted of more serious offences. The court held that there was no basis for appellate interference on the ground of disparity.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and that there was no unjustifiable disparity between the sentences of the appellant and his co-offender. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed.

Orders