Siale v The King - [2024] NZHC 3495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000501

CRI-2024-404-000502 [2024] NZHC 3495

BETWEEN
SIONE SIALE

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 12 November 2024

Counsel:

AWB Zhao for Appellant

LS Seybold for Respondent

Judgment:

21 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 21 November 2024 at 3 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland.
Public Defence Service, Auckland.

SIALE v R [2024] NZHC 3495 [21 November 2024]

The appeal

[1] Sione Siale received a five-year term of imprisonment for a raft of offending, including aggravated robbery. Mr Siale appeals that sentence. The appeal must be allowed if there is an error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed.1 The ultimate concern is whether the sentence is manifestly excessive.2

Background

[2] The facts in connection with Mr Siale’s most serious offence, the aggravated robbery, are helpfully captured by a sentence indication of Judge E M Thomas which Mr Siale accepted. Mr Siale’s partner, Darylyn Menary-Colley, was one of two-offenders:3
On 8 August 2021, Mr Holmes reported his partner missing to the police. On 14 August, he got calls from you about his partner. He did not previously know you. He agreed to meet the three of you to discuss the potential whereabouts of his partner. Initially, that meeting took place on the footpath outside his apartment. It appears to be accepted by everyone that he then invited you upstairs to his apartment. You all went there and, very quickly, things went badly wrong.

Mr Siale, you grabbed him from behind. You put him in a headlock. You threw him to the ground. Once he was on the ground, you kept your arm around his neck while he was down. He struggled to breathe. He panicked. You tied his hands with a power cord. You threatened to get a knife and to hurt him. You threatened to come after him if he went to the police.

Ms Menary-Colley, you and Mr Mafi made similar threats to him. While Mr Siale held him down, the two of you searched his apartment for items that would be worth taking. Mr Mafi, you used another cable to tie up Mr Holmes’ feet and then you hogtied him. So, from there, he had nowhere to go and he stayed bound like that for a long period of time, somewhere around an hour to an hour and a half.

You all continued your threats towards him, including a threat to throw him off the balcony of his building. You forced him to hand over PIN details to his phone and to his bank accounts so that you could steal the money from his banking apps. You went into his banking apps. He did not have any money, so that did not work. Mr Siale, you gagged him with a pair of socks and then the three of you plundered what you could from his apartment. You…

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 Siale v The King

Details

AGLC: Siale v The King [2024] NZHC 3495
Case: [2024] NZHC 3495
Decision Date: 21 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sione Siale appeals a five-year imprisonment sentence for aggravated robbery and other offences. The appeal hinges on whether the sentence is manifestly excessive. Siale argues that the starting point for the aggravated robbery should have been lower, and that greater discounts should have been applied for personal circumstances, the impact on his children, and his remorse. The court assessed the starting point for the aggravated robbery, considering it to be within an acceptable range. While Siale's personal circumstances and remorse were acknowledged, the court found no error in the Judge's discount decisions. The court concluded that the five-year sentence for all offences, considering the nature and extent of the offending, was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the original sentence.

Orders