Romana v The Queen - [2013] NZCA 464

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA666/2012
[2013] NZCA 464

BETWEEN	ROSS ROMANA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA756/2012
AND BETWEEN	JOSEPH TIE Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	21 August 2013
Court:	French, Rodney Hansen and Mallon JJ
Counsel:	L Freyer for Appellant Romana C M Clews for Appellant Tie K A L Bicknell for Respondent
Judgment:	7 October 2013 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Mr Romana’s appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.

B Mr Tie’s appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Introduction

Mr Romana and Mr Tie were found guilty at trial in the High Court of various offences arising out of the alleged kidnapping of a Mr Han. The presiding Judge, Courtney J, sentenced Mr Romana to a term of six years and six months’ imprisonment.[1] Mr Tie was sentenced to a term of three years and three months’ imprisonment.
[1]R v Tie [2012] NZHC 2517.
Both men now appeal their convictions. Mr Romana also appeals his sentence.
The key issues raised by the appeals are:
(i)Did the Judge wrongly admit evidence that was unfairly prejudicial to Mr Romana?
(ii)Should the Judge have discharged the jury due to the conduct of other co-accused?
(iii)Did the Judge adopt too a high a starting point when sentencing Mr Romana and apply an excessive uplift on account of totality?
(iv)Did the Judge err in her directions to the jury regarding Mr Tie’s liability as a secondary party?

Factual background

Mr Romana and Mr Tie were both members of the King Cobra gang.[2]
[2]At trial one police witness said he had no information that Mr Tie was a member of the gang. However in her sentencing notes Courtney J found that he was a member and no challenge has been made to that finding on appeal.
The main complainant, Mr Han, was a loan shark for a Chinese triad gang, the 14K. Mr Han asked the King Cobra gang to find one of his debtors, who owed $70,000. The King Cobra gang duly located the debtor but a dispute then arose between Mr Han and the King Cobra members over payment of a finder’s fee. Mr Han claimed the agreement to pay a fee was contingent on the debtor being able to pay him. The debtor was not able to pay Mr Han and so Mr Han refused to pay the King Cobra members.
The Crown case at trial was as follows.
In December 2010 members of the King Cobra gang discussed how they might extract payment from Mr Han. On 18 December a King Cobra member, Mr Kopelani, went to Mr Han’s house and persuaded him to come and speak to another King Cobra member, Mr Logo, about the money. Mr Kopelani drove Mr Han to Mr Logo’s house. They collected Mr Logo and went on to some other addresses, where they collected Mr Romana and then Mr Tie. During the course of the…

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 Romana v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Romana v The Queen [2013] NZCA 464
Case: [2013] NZCA 464
Decision Date: 7 October 2013 at 10.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Romana v The Queen, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed the appeals brought by Ross Romana and Joseph Tie against their convictions and sentences. Romana was found guilty of multiple offences, including kidnapping, blackmail, and possession of methamphetamine for supply, and was sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment. Tie was found guilty of being a party to the unlawful detention of Mr Han, the blackmail of Mr Han, and wounding Mr Han with intention to injure him, and was sentenced to a term of three years and three months’ imprisonment.

Romana’s appeal against conviction was based on several grounds, including the trial Judge's limitation on cross-examination of Mr Han, the admissibility of evidence about a number plate found at the Bond Street address, and the repeated absences of the co-accused Mr Logo during trial. The Court of Appeal found that none of the grounds, whether viewed individually or collectively, warranted appellate intervention, and the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Romana also appealed against his sentence, arguing that the starting point of five and a half years for the kidnapping and blackmail charges was too high and that the uplift of 15 months on account of totality was excessive. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that there were significant aggravating factors in the case, including the unlawful detention of two victims and the use of actual physical violence and threats of mutilation with a knife in an attempt to extort drugs and large sums of money.

Tie’s appeal against conviction focused on the correctness and adequacy of the Judge’s directions to the jury. The Court of Appeal found that although some of the directions were flawed, they did not disadvantage Tie and did not provide grounds to overturn his convictions. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed both Romana's and Tie's appeals against their convictions and sentences, upholding the decisions of the trial Judge.

Orders