Tereitia Taylor-Harrison v The King - [2024] NZHC 3068

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-419-000068

[2024] NZHC 3068

TEREITIA TAYLOR-HARRISON

v

THE KING

Hearing: 3 September 2024

Appearances:

S McKenna for the Appellant L Glaser for the Crown

Judgment:

21 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 October 2024 at 1 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:

S McKenna, McKenna King, Hamilton
L Glaser, Hamilton Legal, Crown Solicitor Hamilton

TAYLOR-HARRISON v R [2024] NZHC 3068 [21 October 2024]

Introduction

[1] On 26 June 2024, Judge N D Cocurullo sentenced Mr Taylor-Harrison (along with two co-defendants) on a charge of aggravated robbery of a superette.1 The sentence imposed was 22 months’ imprisonment. In Mr Taylor-Harrison’s case, this was to be served cumulatively on an earlier sentence of three years and two months’ imprisonment for offending while on bail. The total sentence imposed on Mr Taylor-Harrison was therefore five years’ imprisonment.

[2] Mr Taylor-Harrison now appeals the sentence imposed on 26 June 2024. He acknowledges that, if taken in isolation the sentence is not excessive, but contends that because it was imposed cumulatively, the total sentence is wholly out of proportion to the gravity of the overall offending.

[3]The Crown opposes the appeal.

Background

[4] At the time of the offending Mr Taylor-Harrison was 18 years old. He had no prior convictions or Youth Court notations.

[5] On 21 January 2022, Mr Taylor-Harrison and his two co-defendants arrived at the superette in a stolen car. They covered their faces and hands and carried black rubbish bags. Mr Taylor-Harrison and one other began opening the cigarette cabinets behind the counter where the shop assistant was standing. The remaining co-defendant stood on the opposite side of the counter. The shop assistant activated the fog cannon. The three offenders ran from the store, each stealing ice cream from the freezer as they left.

[6] On leaving, they were confronted by two members of the public. There was a physical altercation. One of the members of the public tried to stop the trio leaving in a car. The driver (not Mr Taylor-Harrison) reversed it into one of the members of the public throwing him to the ground and then aimed at him a second time, hitting him

1 R v Chadwick [2024] NZDC 14655.

and forcing him up and over the bonnet. Somewhat miraculously, that victim suffered only bruising and scratching.

[7] Mr Taylor-Harrison was charged and bailed. While on bail, he along with four others then took part in a ram raid of Noel Leeming in a stolen car. While Mr Taylor-Harrison’s associates ran into the store, he broke into the car of the security guard who was sitting outside. He tried but failed to grab the security guard’s keys and cell phone and then punched him in the head at least six times, leaving him with a head wound.

[8] As a result of this subsequent offending, Mr Taylor-Harrison was sentenced (also…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tereitia Taylor-Harrison v The King and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 3068
Decision Date: 21 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Tereitia Taylor-Harrison against his sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment for aggravated robbery, which was imposed cumulatively on a previous sentence of 38 months for injuring with intent to injure, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, and burglary. The total sentence imposed was therefore five years. Taylor-Harrison argued that the cumulative sentence rendered the total sentence wholly disproportionate to the gravity of his overall offending. The Crown opposed the appeal.

The legal issues centered on whether the starting point for sentencing was too high, whether the totality principle was applied correctly, whether the adjustment for totality was sufficient, and whether a concurrent rather than cumulative sentence should have been imposed. The Court found that the starting point was within the appropriate range, but the Judge erred by considering totality at the end of the sentencing process rather than earlier. The Court also found that a global starting point of six years was more appropriate. Applying the correct methodology, the Court calculated an end sentence of four years and two months, to be served cumulatively given the nature of the offending. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the cumulative sentence of 22 months, and replaced it with a cumulative end sentence of 12 months, making the total sentence four years and two months’ imprisonment.

Orders