Smith v The the King - [2022] NZHC 2782

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI 2022-463-112

[2022] NZHC 2782

BETWEEN
RANGIMARIE LESLIE SMITH

Appellant

AND

THE CROWN

Respondent

Hearing: 26 October 2022

Appearances:

W Nabney for the appellant L Evans for the Crown

Judgment:

27 October 2022

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

[Appeal against Sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 October 2022 at 12.00 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

SMITH v THE CROWN [2022] NZHC 2782 [27 October 2022]

Background

[1]Rangimarie Smith pleaded guilty to one charge of robbery.1 On 15 July 2022,

Judge T R Ingram sentenced her to two years and three months’ imprisonment.2

[2]Ms Smith appeals. She says that the Judge erred by:

(a)adopting a starting point that was too high;

(b)imposing an excessive uplift for her previous convictions;

(c)giving insufficient credit for her guilty plea; and

(d)giving insufficient credit for personal mitigating factors.

The offending

[3] On 23 April 2021, Ms Smith and two associates were in a car. They drove to a supermarket carpark in Taupō, where they parked the car. Ms Smith and one associate got out of the car and approached a BMW parked opposite the entry to the supermarket. The pair loitered around the BMW for a short period, glancing inside, before returning to their car.

[4] The trio moved their car next to the BMW. They waited inside their car. After about 15 minutes, the victim emerged from the supermarket with a trolley and attempted to put her groceries inside the BMW.

[5] Ms Smith then got out of the waiting car and lunged at the victim, attempting to attack her. The victim ran around the BMW towards the supermarket entrance. Ms Smith and an associate chased and caught the victim. They both attacked her. Ms Smith’s associate repeatedly punched the victim in the face.

[6] Ms Smith wrestled the victim’s handbag from her grip. It contained approximately $1,800 in cash, her keys, bank cards, makeup and other items.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 234. Maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
2 R v Smith [2022] NZDC 13370.

Ms Smith also attempted to take a bag of the victim’s groceries. The victim managed to take the groceries back from Ms Smith.

[7] The trio then drove away. Soon thereafter, Police stopped one of Ms Smith’s associates in the car. The victim’s handbag, car keys and $320 in cash were recovered.

The charge and resolution

[8]Ms Smith was charged with aggravated robbery in April 2021.

[9] Ms Smith applied for that charge to be dismissed under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. That application was dismissed on 22 April 2022.

[10] Ms Smith then proposed to the Crown that she would plead to a reduced charge of robbery. The proceeding resolved on that basis. Ms Smith pleaded guilty on 29 April 2022. This was not long before her trial was scheduled to commence.

[11]The Crown subsequently reduced the charge to one of robbery.

District Court sentencing

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 Smith v The the King

Details

AGLC: Smith v The the King [2022] NZHC 2782
Case: [2022] NZHC 2782
Decision Date: 27 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rangimarie Leslie Smith appeals against the sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment imposed on her by Judge Ingram for a robbery offence. Smith claims that the starting point was too high, the uplift for her previous convictions was excessive, and the credit for her guilty plea and personal mitigating factors was insufficient. The High Court was required to decide whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The Court held that the starting point was within the appropriate range, the uplift for previous convictions should have been four months rather than six, and the credits for the guilty plea and personal mitigating factors were appropriate. Therefore, the Court dismissed Smith's appeal, finding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

In summary, the High Court found that the District Court Judge's sentence for Smith's robbery offence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The Court held that the starting point, uplift for previous convictions, and credits for the guilty plea and personal mitigating factors were all within the appropriate range. The Court dismissed Smith's appeal, leaving the original sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment intact.

Orders