Stratton-Pineaha v R - [2020] NZCA 50

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA787/2018
[2020] NZCA 50

BETWEEN	JORDAN STRATTON-PINEAHA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	26 February 2020
Court:	Clifford, Simon France and Lang JJ
Counsel:	N M Graham for Appellant Z A Fuhr for Respondent
Judgment:	11 March 2020 at 1 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Lang J)

Mr Stratton-Pineaha pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of aggravated robbery. On 14 December 2018, Judge Rea sentenced him to five years and two months’ imprisonment.[1]
[1]R v Stratton-Pineaha [2018] NZDC 26238 [Sentencing notes].
Mr Stratton-Pineaha appeals against sentence on the basis the Judge adopted a starting point that was too high and failed to give him adequate discount for his guilty plea.[2] He contends these errors resulted in the Judge imposing a sentence that was manifestly excessive.

The offending

[2]During the hearing Ms Graham advised us that Mr Stratton-Pineaha abandoned an argument that the Judge failed to give him adequate discount for mitigating factors other than his guilty plea.

The Judge sentenced Mr Stratton-Pineaha on the basis of a summary of facts prepared for a sentence indication the Judge gave on 24 September 2018.[3] This recorded that Mr Stratton-Pineaha and an associate had gone to the complainant’s address at about 11 pm on 26 March 2018. Mr Stratton-Pineaha was wearing Mongrel Mob regalia, including a black leather vest, a hooded sweatshirt and a red bandanna around his neck. His associate was also wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and had a red bandanna covering his face.
[3]R v Stratton-Pineaha DC Napier CRI-2018-020-965, 24 September 2018 [Sentence indication].
The complainant was asleep when Mr Stratton-Pineaha knocked on his door. When the complainant came to the door, Mr Stratton-Pineaha and his associate entered without invitation, causing the complainant to step backwards. Mr Stratton-Pineaha and the complainant then went to the complainant’s bedroom, whilst Mr Stratton‑Pineaha’s associate remained in the kitchen. Mr Stratton-Pineaha told the complainant he was there to take some of his property because the complainant had taken Mr Stratton-Pineaha’s father to court. This was a reference to the fact that the complainant was to give evidence against Mr Stratton-Pineaha’s father on charges of assault and wilful damage of a vehicle.
Mr Stratton-Pineaha then produced a knife having a blade approximately 15 centimetres in length. He brandished this at the complainant and told him he would be cut with the knife if he went to the police or tried to stop Mr Stratton-Pineaha from doing what he was about to do. Mr Stratton-Pineaha then took the complainant’s laptop computer and cellphone from the bedroom. His associate took the complainant’s car keys and wallet from the kitchen area. The two men then left the address.
The complainant immediately went to a neighbouring address where he called the police. He later found a spare key to his car and, fearing that Mr Stratton-Pineaha…

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 Stratton-Pineaha v R

Details

AGLC: Stratton-Pineaha v R [2020] NZCA 50
Case: [2020] NZCA 50
Decision Date: 11 March 2020 at 1 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jordan Stratton-Pineaha appealed against a sentence of five years and two months' imprisonment imposed by the District Court for aggravated robbery. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal on 26 February 2020, with Clifford, Simon France, and Lang JJ presiding. The appellant contended that the District Court judge had erred in setting the starting point for the sentence too high and in failing to provide sufficient discount for his guilty plea, resulting in a sentence that was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties. The District Court judge had based the starting point for the sentence on a passage from a previous Court of Appeal case, which set the starting point at a minimum of seven years for cases involving forced entry into a private residence at night by multiple offenders seeking money or property, accompanied by violence or threats of violence. The judge had also applied a 10% discount for the late guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of five years and two months' imprisonment. The appellant's counsel submitted that the starting point should have been lower, given that the appellant and his associate had not forced entry into the complainant's dwelling and that no actual violence had been used. The court, however, found that the aggravating factors present in this case warranted a starting point of at least seven years' imprisonment. The court also found that the discount for the late guilty plea was within the available range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against sentence on 11 March 2020. The court held that the District Court judge had not erred in setting the starting point or in applying the discount for the guilty plea, and that the sentence was therefore appropriate.

Orders