Hearing:	22 October 2015
Court:	Harrison, Heath and Collins JJ
Counsel:	N M Dutch for Appellant (CA475/2014) W T Nabney for Appellant (CA494/2014) J C Gwilliam for Appellant (CA611/2014) M D Downs for Respondent
Judgment:	17 November 2015 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AAn extension of time to appeal in CA611/2014 is granted.
BThe appeals against conviction and sentence in CA475/2014 and CA611/2014 are dismissed.
CThe appeal against sentence in CA494/2014 is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harrison J)

Introduction

Terere MacDonald, Derek Savage and his son, Deuce Savage, were found guilty following a trial before Lang J and a jury in the High Court at Rotorua of two counts of discharging firearms with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to two victims. Mr MacDonald and Deuce Savage were found guilty of aggravated robbery. Deuce Savage was also found guilty of demanding with menaces.
Lang J sentenced Mr MacDonald to a term of 14 and a half years imprisonment, Derek Savage to 12 and a half years imprisonment, and Deuce Savage to 14 years and nine months imprisonment.[1] Minimum sentences of imprisonment of six years and four months were imposed on each man.
[1]R v Savage [2014] NZHC 1802.
Messrs Derek and Deuce Savage appeal against their convictions and sentence. Mr MacDonald appeals against his sentence only.

Facts

In chronological sequence, and by reference to the charge against Deuce Savage of demanding with menaces, it is undisputed that on 13 August 2013 Desmond Ngaheu threatened Justin Sattler with violence unless he paid $200. Deuce Savage is a large man. He had arrived at Mr Sattler’s address in Kawerau shortly before Mr Ngaheu. He was present when the offending occurred. The Crown’s case against Deuce Savage was that, while he did not make any direct threats against Mr Sattler, his presence acted as an intimidating factor which assisted Mr Ngaheu as the principal offender on the charge of demanding with menaces.
Shortly afterwards on the same day Messrs MacDonald and Deuce Savage visited Jeremy August at his house in Kawerau. Mr August is a drug dealer. All men are said to be members of the Mongrel Mob gang. Acting in concert and wearing disguises, Mr MacDonald and Deuce Savage robbed Mr August of cash and cannabis. They also advised him that he would be able to continue to deal drugs in Kawerau provided that activity was conducted under the Mongrel Mob’s auspices. Despite their disguises, Mr August recognised both men.
At 5 am on 13 September 2013 Mr MacDonald returned to Mr August’s home. He demanded that Mr August give him something because he had to “have something to take back to the boys”. By these words, Mr MacDonald was allegedly…

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 Savage v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Savage v The Queen [2015] NZCA 550
Case: [2015] NZCA 550
Decision Date: 17 November 2015 at 3 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Derek Maynard Savage, Terere Kiwaho MacDonald, and Deuce Derrick Junior Evo Savage, were found guilty of serious criminal charges including discharging firearms with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, aggravated robbery, and demanding with menaces. Each appellant sought to challenge both their convictions and sentences. The Court of Appeal considered the arguments raised concerning the admissibility and reliability of identification evidence, the appropriateness of joinder of charges, and the starting point and cumulative nature of the sentences imposed. The Court found no grounds to overturn the convictions or sentences. The identification evidence was deemed reliable, and the joinder of charges was appropriate. The sentences, which reflected the seriousness of the crimes, were considered fair and in accordance with sentencing principles. The appeals were dismissed.

Orders