Legal Research
Cases
Robin v R

Robin v R

Case [2013] NZCA 330 26 July 2013

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA187/2012
[2013] NZCA 330

BETWEEN	JASON KARAURIA ROBIN First Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA214/2012
AND BETWEEN	TANGAROA WATENE PAREKURA GRAY Second Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA220/2012
AND BETWEEN	SAMUEL PEARSON Third Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA267/2012
AND BETWEEN	BECK EDEN GRAY Fourth Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	30 April 2013
Court:	Arnold, Heath and Keane JJ
Counsel:	A M Simperingham for Appellant Robin J G Krebs for Appellant Tangaroa Gray N H Wright for Appellant Pearson D J Sharp for Appellant Beck Gray S B Manning for Respondent
Judgment:	26 July 2013 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A CA187/2012:
Jason Robin’s appeal against sentence is allowed. His sentence of nine years’ imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of seven years, six months’ imprisonment is substituted.
BCA214/2012:
Tangaroa Gray’s appeal against sentence is allowed. His sentence of four years, six months’ imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of three years, six months’ imprisonment is substituted.
CCA220/2012:
Samuel Pearson’s appeal against sentence is allowed. His sentence of seven years, nine months’ imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of six years, four months’ imprisonment is substituted.
DCA267/2012:
In relation to Beck Gray:
(a)His application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
(b)His application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
(c)His appeal against conviction is dismissed.
(d)His appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of nine years’ imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of seven years, six months’ imprisonment is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Arnold J)

Table of contents

Para No

Introduction  [1]
A brief background  [2]
Mr Beck Gray’s conviction appeal  [6]
           Unreasonable verdict?[11]
           The trial Judge’s instructions  [27]

(i)   Identification  [29]
      (ii) Failure to put defence adequately  [40]
      (iii) Self-defence  [44]
Application to admit new evidence  [49]
The sentence appeals  [60]
           Mr Tangaroa Gray  [67]
           Mr Beck Gray  [73]
           Mr Jason Robin  [75]
           Mr Samuel Pearson  [80]
Decision  [82]

Introduction

The appellants were charged with two counts of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, each count involving a different victim, namely Messrs Roger and Nicodemus Te Puni (counts one and two respectively). Mr Pearson entered pleas of guilty to both counts on the morning of trial and was sentenced to seven years, nine months’ imprisonment.[1] Following a jury trial before Judge Wilson QC:[2]
(a)Mr Robin was convicted on both counts and was sentenced to imprisonment for nine years;
(b)Mr Tangaroa Gray was convicted on count one and acquitted on count two. He was sentenced to imprisonment for four years, six months; and
(c)Mr Beck Gray was convicted on count one and acquitted on count two. He was sentenced to imprisonment for nine years.

Mr Beck Gray now appeals against both conviction and sentence, and the remaining appellants against sentence only.[3] (There was one further offender, Mr Rakairoa Gray, who was convicted on count one and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. He has not appealed.) Mr Beck Gray’s appeal was…

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 Robin v R

Details

AGLC: Robin v R [2013] NZCA 330
Case: [2013] NZCA 330
Decision Date: 26 July 2013 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants were convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to two victims in a gang-related attack. Jason Karauria Robin, Tangaroa Watene Parekura Gray, Samuel Pearson and Beck Eden Gray were all involved in the attack. Beck Gray now appeals against both his conviction and sentence, while the other appellants appeal against their sentences only. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals against sentence, and Beck Gray's appeal against sentence, but dismissed his appeal against conviction. The Court substituted sentences for each appellant. The Court found that the jury's verdict on the evidence was not unreasonable, and that the trial judge's instructions on identification were sufficient. The Court also found that the trial judge adequately put the defence to the jury, and that there was no miscarriage of justice as a result of the judge not directing the jury on self-defence in relation to Beck Gray. The Court declined to admit new evidence on the basis that it was unlikely to be reliable, and dismissed Beck Gray's appeal against conviction. The Court found that the appellants were entitled to greater discounts for various factors, including provocation and excessive self-defence, than they had been given by the trial judge.

Orders