Roberts v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 2128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2021-463-73

[2021] NZHC 2128

BETWEEN
AIDEN ROBERTS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 16 August 2021

Appearances:

R Laybourn for Appellant

D McWilliam for Respondent

Judgment:

16 August 2021

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 August 2021 at 3.30 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

ROBERTS v R [2021] NZHC 2128 [16 August 2021]

[1] Mr Roberts pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of aggravated robbery.1 On 20 May 2021 Judge P G Mabey QC sentenced him to three years imprisonment.2 Mr Roberts appeals against sentence on the ground that errors in formulating the sentence led to an end sentence that was manifestly excessive.

Background

[2] Mr Roberts entered his guilty plea on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. This recorded that on 10 February 2019 Mr Roberts was one of three persons who were travelling in a motor vehicle in the Tauranga area. They came across a motor vehicle being driven by the complainant, who suffered from mental health issues that rendered him vulnerable. The complainant was known to one of the female passengers in Mr Roberts’ car. At some stage during the journey the two vehicles came to a stop and Mr Roberts’ female associate got into the front seat of the complainant’s vehicle. She then told him to follow the vehicle in which Mr Roberts and his other associates were travelling.

[3] Both vehicles went to a service station. By this stage the female who was travelling in the complainant’s vehicle had removed his cellphone to prevent him from making contact with anyone. At the service station Mr Roberts got into the complainant’s vehicle and told him to drive to Papamoa. During the journey Mr Roberts helped himself to some of the complainant’s personal items. The other vehicle followed the vehicle in which Mr Roberts and the complainant were travelling.

[4] At some stage during the journey Mr Roberts told the complainant to stop his vehicle. He then told him to get out of the driver’s seat and, when the complainant refused, Mr Roberts produced a knife and threatened to cut him. Not surprisingly, the complainant complied with Mr Roberts’ instructions. Mr Roberts then got into the driver’s seat of the complainant’s vehicle and told the complainant he was going to take all his property.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 235(b).
2 R v Roberts [2021] NZDC 12080.

[5] The complainant then obeyed Mr Roberts’ instructions to transfer money from his bank account to Mr Roberts’ bank account using his cellphone. The two vehicles then travelled to a shopping plaza, where the complainant was directed to use money from his bank account to buy things that Mr Roberts and his colleagues wanted. The group then drove to a post office agency where they made an unsuccessful attempt to transfer the complainant’s vehicle…

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 Queen

Details

AGLC: Roberts v The Queen [2021] NZHC 2128
Case: [2021] NZHC 2128
Decision Date: 16 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aiden Roberts appeals against the sentence imposed on him by Judge P G Mabey QC in the Rotorua District Court, which was three years imprisonment for aggravated robbery. Roberts argues that the sentence is manifestly excessive due to alleged errors in the sentencing process. The appeal was heard by Lang J on 16 August 2021.

The court considered whether the District Court Judge erred in failing to provide Roberts with an adequate discount for his genuine remorse, the time he spent subject to restrictive electronic monitoring bail conditions, and the causative factors arising out of his background of social and cultural deprivation. The Judge had provided a discount for remorse but was sceptical of its genuineness given Roberts' history of violence and lack of insight into his offending. The Judge also provided a discount for time spent on electronic monitoring bail, but considered Roberts' breaches of bail justified not providing further credit. The court found that while there may have been a causative link between Roberts' offending and his background, the aggravating factors of his crime justified the starting point of four years imprisonment selected by the Judge.

The court ultimately found that the sentence of three years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, as the starting point of four years imprisonment offset any additional discount that may have been available. Therefore, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders