Stephens v The Queen - [2011] NZCA 341

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA808/2010
[2011] NZCA 341

BETWEEN QUENTIN STEPHENS
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 13 July 2011

Court: Randerson, Potter and Ronald Young JJ

Counsel: M M Wilkinson-Smith for Appellant
M J Inwood for Respondent

Judgment: 25 July 2011 at 10 a.m.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is allowed but only for the purpose of correcting the imposition of sentences in accordance with [35] of this judgment.

___________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

Introduction

The appellant was sentenced by Courtney J in the High Court to preventive detention after he pleaded guilty to a series of serious offences committed over a three day period in February 2010.[1] A minimum period of imprisonment of six and a half years was also imposed.
[1] R v Stephens HC Auckland, CRI-2010-4-1971, 2 November 2010.
For some of the offending, the appellant was jointly charged with a Ms Opetaia who received an effective sentence of five years imprisonment with a minimum period of three years, three months. Her sentence is not at issue in this appeal.
The most serious of the appellant’s convictions were on three charges of aggravated robbery, one of kidnapping and one of robbery. In addition, there were two charges of burglary; one charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle; two charges of aggravated injury; two charges of theft; and one charge of possession of needles contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The offences arose from seven separate incidents summarised by the sentencing Judge as follows:
[3]       ... The first occurred on the morning of 1 February 2010 and was the burglary of items from a home of victim M together with the theft of a Nissan Pulsar, which was used over the next three days to commit other crimes.
[4]       The second incident occurred on the morning of 2 February 2010 and was the theft of a phone and cash from a shop owned by victim J.
[5]       The third offence occurred on the afternoon of 3 February 2010 and was the theft of a handbag belonging to victim Q. Mr Stephens wrenched the handbag from her grip as she walked along the street while Ms Opetaia distracted her.
[6]       The fourth incident occurred at 7 pm at a residential house in Mount Roskill occupied by victims T and H. They were not at home at the time. The offenders entered the property by smashing a glass window panel and took personal belongings. While they were still there victims B and S arrived at the property to ask about renting it. Mr Stephens threatened victim B with a hammer and demanded that he hand over his wallet, which he did. Ms Opetaia demanded that victim S hand over her rings, punching her in the neck.
[7]       The fifth incident occurred shortly after 7.45 pm on the same evening, 3 February 2010. Victim G was walking to his flat in Upper Queen Street and on entering…

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 Stephens v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Stephens v The Queen [2011] NZCA 341
Case: [2011] NZCA 341
Decision Date: 25 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quentin Stephens appealed against his sentence imposed by Courtney J in the High Court at Auckland. Stephens had pleaded guilty to a series of serious offences committed over three days in February 2010. These offences included aggravated robbery, kidnapping, robbery, burglary, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, aggravated injury, theft, and possession of needles. Stephens was sentenced to preventive detention and a minimum period of imprisonment of six and a half years. The key legal issue in this appeal was whether the sentence of preventive detention was manifestly excessive, and if a lengthy determinate sentence would be adequate to protect society. The Court of Appeal considered the factors under s 87(4) of the Sentencing Act 2002 and agreed with the sentencing Judge that the appellant's past history showed a pattern of serious violence and that there was a high risk of him committing another qualifying offence if he did not successfully address his issues with drug and alcohol abuse and anger management. The Court concluded that the protection of the community from serious violent offenders such as Stephens required a sentence of preventive detention. The appeal was allowed, but only to the extent of correcting the imposition of sentences. The sentences were to be served concurrently.

Orders