Rome v The Queen - [2012] NZCA 476

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA251/2012
[2012] NZCA 476

BETWEEN FALEAPA ROME
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 10 October 2012

Court: Stevens, Venning and Dobson JJ

Counsel: J R F Anderson for Appellant
J M Jelaś and M R Walker for Respondent

Judgment: 16 October 2012 at 10.15 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Dobson J)

Introduction

On 16 February 2012, at the conclusion of a jury trial in the District Court at Auckland, Mr Rome was found guilty on two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of assault with intent to rob. On 1 May 2012, Mr Rome was sentenced by the trial judge, Judge Gittos, to concurrent terms of three years and nine months’ imprisonment on the two counts of aggravated robbery and a concurrent sentence of two years’ imprisonment on the conviction for assault with intent to rob.[1] He appeals against both the convictions and the sentence.

Facts

[1] R v Rome DC Auckland CRI-2010-004-8670, 1 May 2012.

The Crown’s case was that the three young men who were the complainants in the case had been set upon by a group of men in the Royal Oak area of suburban Auckland, at 2 am one morning. The complainants had been socialising for the evening with others, and were walking to a parked car where their friends were waiting for them. When the complainants were in the immediate vicinity of the car, a number of men from a larger group comprised of men of Polynesian ethnicity, who were walking on the other side of the road, detached themselves from that group. Five or so of this group crossed the road and, with threats such as “the big bad wolf is coming”, assaulted the three complainants, made demands for cell phones and wallets, and proceeded to rob two of them.
One of the complainants, Mr Barco, managed to make it into the car after he had been assaulted but without having to give up any possessions. A second complainant, Mr Kattan, was felled by blows from one of the attackers, and then hit about the face with a bottle. He suffered injuries that required hospital dressing but not stitches. His wallet and cell phone were taken.
The third complainant, Mr Filion, was strangled around the neck and placed in a so-called choker hold whilst pressed against the bonnet of his friend’s vehicle, to the point where he appears to have passed out. His friends in the car observed his eyes rolling back so that his pupils were no longer visible, and at least one friend in the car thought that he had been killed. He slumped to the ground but regained consciousness and shortly thereafter rejoined his friends. He, too, was robbed of a wallet and cell phone.
The events all occurred very quickly. At least one of the attacking group also kicked panels and windows of the car, demanding…

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 Rome v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Rome v The Queen [2012] NZCA 476
Case: [2012] NZCA 476
Decision Date: 16 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Faleapa Rome appealed against both his conviction and the sentence imposed on him by the District Court. The conviction arose from his involvement in a series of aggravated robberies and an assault with intent to rob. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, with Stevens, Venning, and Dobson JJ presiding. The legal issues at hand included the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict, as well as the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The Court found that the jury's verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence, including the testimony of Mr. Pita, who had implicated Mr. Rome in the offences. The Court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account Mr. Rome's criminal history and the seriousness of the offences.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal noted that the jury had been properly directed and had a reasonable basis to find Mr. Rome guilty of the offences. The Court held that the jury was entitled to accept parts of Mr. Pita's evidence that implicated Mr. Rome while rejecting other parts that were exculpatory. The Court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or unable to be supported, having regard to the evidence. The Court also found that the sentence imposed on Mr. Rome was not manifestly excessive, and that the trial judge had been entitled to consider Mr. Rome's criminal history in imposing the sentence. Accordingly, the appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

Orders