Roberts v The King - [2024] NZHC 670

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-17

[2024] NZHC 670

BETWEEN
SAMUSETA EZRA ROBERTS

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 12 March 2024

Counsel:

R Hinds and C Farquhar for Appellant C Best for Respondent

Judgment:

22 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 March 2024 at 4.00 pm.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors/Counsel: Crown Law, Wellington
C Farquhar, Barrister, Auckland

ROBERTS v R [2024] NZHC 670 [22 March 2024]

This appeal

[1] Mr Samuseta Ezra Roberts appeals against a sentence of 27-and-a-half months’ imprisonment imposed by District Court Judge Grau (as she then was) at the Manukau District Court on 20 December 2023.1

[2]The sentence was imposed in respect of three charges:

(a)aggravated burglary;2 and

(b)two separate charges of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, involving different vehicles on different days.3

Grounds of appeal and result

[3] For Mr Roberts, it is submitted that the end sentence was manifestly excessive and ought to have resulted in an end sentence of two years’ imprisonment. There are two grounds of appeal:

(a)the Judge erred in not applying a separate discount for Mr Roberts’ remorse which should have been five per cent; and

(b)the 15 per cent discount afforded to Mr Roberts’ personal circumstances causative of the offending was insufficient. Also, Mr Roberts’ prospects of rehabilitation and mental health struggles deserved further recognition.

[4] Mr Roberts submits that the Court would have granted him further 10- 15 per cent discounts if these factors had been recognised.

[5]My conclusion is that this appeal must fail.

1      R v Roberts [2023] NZDC 28895.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 232(1)(a). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 226(1). Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

[6] There is no fundamental error in the discounts given to Mr Roberts and there is no demonstrable error in the Judge’s approach overall. Even if there was, any alteration to the sentence would be only “tinkering”. Any reduced sentence would not result in two years’ imprisonment or less, at which point home detention could be considered. Even if it did, the Judge was right when she said that if the end sentence was two years or below, she would not have granted home detention because it was inappropriate and wrong in principle to do so.

[7] When I stand back and analyse the sentence as a whole, the only word to which the descriptor “manifestly” could attach, is the word “lenient”. There is no basis to call this sentence manifestly excessive. I now provide my detailed reasons.

The facts

Aggravated burglary

[8] At about 8:27 am on 29 October 2022, Mr Roberts arrived at the victim’s address in a stolen Mitsubishi Pajero. He had a large knife in his possession (approximately 30 cm in length). He rang the bell at the gate. When there was no response, he climbed over the gate and armed himself with the knife. He walked…

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 Roberts v The King

Details

AGLC: Roberts v The King [2024] NZHC 670
Case: [2024] NZHC 670
Decision Date: 22 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Roberts v The King, the appellant, Samuseta Ezra Roberts, appealed against a 27-and-a-half months’ imprisonment sentence imposed by the Manukau District Court for aggravated burglary and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. Roberts argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should have been reduced to two years’ imprisonment. The grounds for appeal included an alleged failure by the District Court to apply a separate discount for Roberts’ remorse and insufficient allowance for his personal circumstances and mental health struggles. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or if there was a material error in the discount applied by the District Court.

The High Court found no fundamental error in the sentencing process. Regarding remorse, the Court noted that while Roberts had expressed remorse in a letter presented to the District Court, there was little evidence of genuine remorse during his interview. The Court concluded that the District Court was not in error in not applying an additional discount for remorse, given Roberts' extensive history of similar serious offending. Concerning the discount for personal circumstances, the Court found that the District Court had appropriately considered Roberts’ background and mental health issues, and had applied a 15 per cent discount as requested. The Court also found no error in the District Court’s decision not to apply further reductions for rehabilitation prospects, considering Roberts’ immediate resort to serious offending post-release and his poor compliance with previous bail conditions.

Ultimately, the High Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The Court emphasised that any alteration to the sentence would be mere tinkering and that the overall sentence was arguably lenient given the circumstances. The Court also agreed with the District Court’s decision that home detention would not be appropriate given Roberts' history of serious offending and poor compliance with electronically monitored conditions.

Orders