Sagote v The King - [2023] NZHC 1008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-000070

[2023] NZHC 1008

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against sentence

BETWEEN

BRADLEY SAGOTE

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 1 May 2023

Appearances:

S Tait for Appellant

J L Gibson for Respondent

Judgment:

1 May 2023

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

Counsel/Solicitors:
S Tait, Auckland
Meredith Connell (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Auckland

SAGOTE v R [2023] NZHC 1008 [1 May 2023]

[1] Mr Sagote pleaded guilty to a charge of injuring with intent to injure,1 and a charge of aggravated robbery.2 On 24 January 2023, he was sentenced by Judge Pidwell in the Auckland District Court to four years and six months’ imprisonment.3

The offending

Injures intent to injure

[2] At 6.50 pm on Thursday, 15 July 2021, the complainant and Mr Sagote were outside a central Auckland location. They started talking to each other.

[3] Mr Sagote walked up to the complainant and, with a closed fist, punched the complainant six times in the face causing him to fall to the ground. While the complainant was on the ground, Mr Sagote kicked him twice to the body. Mr Sagote then walked away leaving the complainant on the ground.

[4]The complainant sustained a facial fracture to his left orbital wall.

Aggravated robbery

[5] At around 1.30 am on Friday, 15 April 2022, Mr Sagote, together with an unknown male, arrived at the complainant’s address in New Lynn. The complainant was home alone with her 14-month-old son.

[6] The complainant woke to the men arriving and went to the door thinking it was her partner. Mr Sagote spoke to the complainant through the door saying, “you know who I am, I’m Brad”, before pushing the door. The complainant managed to push the door closed.

[7] Mr Sagote and the other man then forced their way into the address by kicking in the front door, causing it to smash.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2). Maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 235(b). Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      R v Sagote [2023] NZDC 1116.

[8] The complainant ran to her bedroom so that she could call the police. However, she was followed into the room by Mr Sagote who stood over her. He held up a closed fist and said, “where are the keys for the car outside?”.

[9] The complainant told Mr Sagote that she did not have them, so he instead demanded her cellphone before taking it from her.

[10] Mr Sagote and the other man then left. The complainant noticed her TV was missing. This was later found on the street. Police found the phone at Mr Sagote’s home address.

District Court decision

[11] Mr Sagote accepted a sentence indication on 10 October 2022. He was convicted and sentenced by Judge Pidwell in the Auckland District Court on 24 January 2023.

[12] The Judge summarised the offending, and referred to Mr Sagote’s personal circumstances.…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sagote v The King and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] NZHC 1008
Decision Date: 1 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bradley Sagote appealed against his sentence imposed by the Auckland District Court. He had pleaded guilty to charges of injuring with intent and aggravated robbery. The original sentence was four years and six months imprisonment. Sagote argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the sentencing judge had not properly considered the cultural report, his remorse, and his rehabilitative efforts. The High Court found that the cultural report did not demonstrate significant cultural dislocation or deprivation that linked to Sagote's offending. The Court also found that Sagote's willingness to engage in restorative justice and the rehabilitative courses he completed did not warrant an additional discount. The 10% discount applied by the sentencing judge was adequate to account for mitigating factors. Therefore, the sentence was not manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed.

The key legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, the High Court can only substitute its own sentence if the original sentence is manifestly excessive. The Court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered the cultural report, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts and applied an adequate discount. The cultural report did not demonstrate significant cultural dislocation that linked to Sagote's offending. The Court found that Sagote's willingness to engage in restorative justice and the rehabilitative courses he completed did not warrant an additional discount. The 10% discount applied by the sentencing judge was adequate to account for mitigating factors. Therefore, the sentence was not manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders