Legal Research
Cases
Tereora v R

Tereora v R

Case [2015] NZCA 120 22 April 2015

Sentencing

Totality Principle

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA276/2014
[2015] NZCA 120

BETWEEN	ALEX TEREORA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	11 March 2015
Court:	Stevens, Asher and Williams JJ
Counsel:	R M Mansfield for Appellant H W Ebersohn for Respondent
Judgment:	22 April 2015 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against sentence is allowed.
BThe sentence imposed in the High Court is quashed and a sentence of eight years and eight months’ imprisonment is substituted.
CThe minimum period of imprisonment imposed in the High Court is quashed and a minimum period of three years and six months’ imprisonment is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Williams J)

The appellant, Mr Tereora, pleaded guilty to one charge each of aggravated robbery, assault with a weapon and attempting to use a firearm against a constable in the course of his duty. He entered those pleas on 11 February 2014, the day after his trial on those charges was to commence.
The appellant was sentenced by Venning J on 14 April 2014 to a total of eight years and ten months’ imprisonment.[1] That total comprises the following distinct cumulative sentences:
(a)Aggravated robbery: six years and four months’ imprisonment.
(b)Assault with a weapon: one year imprisonment.
(c)Attempting to use a firearm against a constable: one year and six months’ imprisonment.
[1]R v Tereora [2014] NZHC 772 at [25].
Venning J also imposed a five year minimum period of imprisonment (MPI).[2]
[2]At [26].
The appellant now appeals against the sentence and the MPI.

The facts

Aggravated robbery

On the evening of 3 June 2012, the appellant and two unknown accomplices, all dressed in balaclavas and fingerless gloves, smashed the window of the complainant’s Papatoetoe home. During the attack the complainant, a 51 year old male, arrived home and noticed a car in his driveway. Once he parked his car, he was grabbed by a man and dragged inside to the lounge where his hands were tied behind his back and he was forced to lie face down on the floor.
One of the men, either the appellant or one of his associates, threatened the complainant. Those threats included a reference to a firearm. The assailants demanded to know “where is the money and the gold?” The complainant lay face down while his house was searched. The assailants took the complainant’s wallet, car keys, cigarettes and cell phone before they left the house. The complainant was left with his hands tied.

Assault with a weapon

On the morning of 8 June 2012 the appellant arrived by car at a second complainant’s address with a male accomplice. The complainant, who had some six years earlier sold a laptop to the appellant, was at home with her 14-year-old daughter.
The appellant told the complainant’s daughter to get into the car with his associate. The complainant refused to let this happen, and walked back into her house with her daughter. The appellant followed the complainant, drew a pistol and pointed…

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 Tereora v R

Details

AGLC: Tereora v R [2015] NZCA 120
Case: [2015] NZCA 120
Decision Date: 22 April 2015 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alex Tereora, the appellant, appealed against the sentence and the minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) imposed by Venning J in the High Court, which had sentenced him to a total of eight years and ten months’ imprisonment for aggravated robbery, assault with a weapon, and attempting to use a firearm against a constable. The Court of Appeal considered the appeal on three grounds: the proportionality of the cumulative sentence, the appropriateness of the MPI, and the jurisdiction to impose a MPI over the whole cumulative sentence. The Crown argued that each individual sentence was within range and that the final sentence was proportionate. The Court found that the starting point for each offence was not disproportionate to the offending and that the cumulative sentence, subject to a slight correction, could not be faulted. The Court also found that the Judge was entitled in principle to impose a MPI, albeit a reduced one, in relation to the lead sentence. The appeal against sentence was allowed, and the sentence was substituted to eight years and eight months’ imprisonment. The minimum period of imprisonment was substituted to three years and six months’ imprisonment.

Orders