Ross v Police - [2015] NZHC 1633

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-404-000136 [2015] NZHC 1633

BETWEEN
CAMERON ANTHONY ROSS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 13 July 2015

Appearances:

Hannah Kim for the Appellant
Zoe Hamill for the Respondent

Judgment:

15 July 2015

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J [Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 July 2015 at 11:00am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Date:

ROSS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 1633 [15 July 2015]

Introduction

[1] On 1 May 2015, the appellant, Cameron Anthony Ross, was sentenced by Judge Andrée Wiltens in the Manukau District Court to three years and nine months’ imprisonment after having pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated robbery.1

[2] He now appeals that sentence on the grounds that the learned District Court Judge erred in declining to give him credit for his efforts towards rehabilitation, family support and various mitigating personal circumstances.

The offending

[3] Shortly before midnight on Friday, 29 November 2013 the complainant was seated alone in his car in the carpark at McDonald’s, Albany eating the food he had just purchased. His car was a hi-spec Nissan Skyline valued at approximately
$70,000, fitted with a number of expensive after-market accessories.

[4] Mr Ross’ female accomplice called out to him and asked for a ride to the bus depot. The complainant agreed and she got into the front passenger seat. Just as they were about to leave, the accomplice said “Oh, wait for my mate” at which point Mr Ross appeared and clambered into the back seat.

[5] The complainant had driven only about a kilometre before Mr Ross said he needed to go to the toilet. The car was stopped at which point Mr Ross leaned forward, produced a firearm from inside his jacket, and pointed it directly at the complainant. He told him to get out of the car. The complainant asked if he could retrieve his mobile phone but Mr Ross told him to leave it. The complainant got out of the car while the gun remained trained on him. Mr Ross got into the driver’s seat
and drove away.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 235(b). The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.

[6] Mr Ross was apprehended on 3 December 2013 and two days later the car was recovered with some damage and items missing from it.2

[7] Unsurprisingly, the complainant was shaken by the incident. He believed he was going to die when the gun was brandished at him. He was very proud of his car and understandably angry at it being taken from him at gunpoint.

Personal circumstances

[8] Mr Ross is 38 years old. He has close associations with the Tribesmen gang. He has a lengthy record of previous convictions. His early offending was primarily of a nuisance and anti-social nature including wilful damage, property offences and drug offences. He does, however, have previous convictions for possession of a weapon, assaulting Police, escaping from custody…

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 Ross v Police

Details

AGLC: Ross v Police [2015] NZHC 1633
Case: [2015] NZHC 1633
Decision Date: 15 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cameron Anthony Ross appeals his sentence of three years and nine months' imprisonment for aggravated robbery, arguing that the District Court judge erred in not granting a discount for his efforts towards rehabilitation, family support, and mitigating personal circumstances. The court examines whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or if a different sentence should be imposed, considering the appellant's extensive criminal history and the need for deterrence and community protection. The court finds that the District Court judge was entitled to not give any additional discount for the factors mentioned, and the sentence was within the judge's discretion. Therefore, the appeal against sentence is dismissed.

The court's reasoning is based on the appellant's extensive criminal history, which includes 24 convictions for dishonesty, 16 for drugs, and 9 for robbery and aggravated robbery, with 8 occasions of being found in possession of offensive weapons. The court also considers the use of a firearm and the high value of the stolen items, which make the offending more serious than the examples listed in the relevant tariff case, Mako. The court concludes that the sentence imposed by the District Court judge is not manifestly excessive, and a different sentence should not be imposed. The appeal against sentence is dismissed, and the original sentence stands.

Orders