The Queen v Renata - [2009] NZCA 526

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA363/2009
[2009] NZCA 526
THE QUEEN
v
BYRON WIREMU RENATA
Hearing:2 November 2009

Court:William Young P, Chisholm and Priestley JJ
Counsel:J G Rowan QC for Appellant

M E Ball for Respondent

Judgment:11 November 2009 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A            Appeal against sentence allowed.
B            Sentence of nine and a half years imprisonment quashed and replaced by a sentence of eight and a half years imprisonment.
C            Minimum period of imprisonment of six years and two months quashed and replaced by a period of five years and eight months.

____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Chisholm J)
[1] Having pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and aggravated wounding, the appellant was sentenced by Judge Radford in the Wanganui District Court to nine and a half years imprisonment. He was also ordered to serve a minimum period of imprisonment of six years and two months, which represented two thirds of the sentence. His co-offender was sentenced to four years and nine months imprisonment, but on appeal to the High Court that sentence was reduced to three years and seven months.
[2] The appellant appeals against his sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive because:
(a)The starting point of 11 and a half years was too high.

(b) The discount of 17 per cent for mitigating factors was inadequate.
(c)There was an improper disparity between his sentence and the sentence of his co-offender.

It is also claimed that the minimum period of imprisonment failed to take into account mitigating factors (guilty plea and remorse) and was thereby too high.
Facts
[3]        At approximately 9.10pm on 8 September 2008 the appellant, then aged 19 years, and his female co-offender, then aged 15 years, went to the home of a 67 year old man. The victim was targeted because he had assets. The appellant was armed with a machete.
[4]        Before knocking at the door the offenders removed the exterior light bulb so that the victim could not switch on the outside light. After the victim opened the door in response to their knocking, the offenders rushed into the kitchen. The appellant was holding the machete above his head.
[5]        Having retreated into the dining room the victim attempted to seek refuge behind the dining table. Although it was the Crown’s contention that the appellant then wounded the victim by striking him across the head with the machete, this was disputed by the appellant who maintained that the wound was caused by the appellant falling and striking his head on the table. We will return to that aspect shortly.
[6]        While the victim was on the floor he was assaulted by the appellant who demanded his EFTPOS card and PIN number, which the victim refused to provide. The victim retreated into a bedroom and ultimately into the master bedroom. The appellant continued to assault the victim in both those rooms. Ultimately, fearing for his life, the victim told the appellant where his…

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 The Queen v Renata

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Renata [2009] NZCA 526
Case: [2009] NZCA 526
Decision Date: 11 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal, the appellant, Byron Wiremu Renata, contests the sentence of nine and a half years imprisonment imposed by Judge Radford in the Wanganui District Court. Renata had pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and aggravated wounding, and was also ordered to serve a minimum period of imprisonment of six years and two months. The appeal focuses on three main grounds: the starting point for sentencing was too high, the discount for mitigating factors was inadequate, and there was an improper disparity between Renata's sentence and that of his co-offender. Additionally, it is argued that the minimum period of imprisonment failed to take into account mitigating factors and was thereby too high.

The Court of Appeal began by considering the starting point for sentencing, which Judge Radford had set at 11 and a half years. The Court found that this starting point was within the appropriate range, taking into account the seriousness of the crime, including the high degree of criminality, planning, and violence involved. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the extent of the discount for mitigating factors, particularly Renata's guilty plea and youth. They found that a 25% discount was more appropriate, resulting in a final sentence of eight and a half years imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal also examined the disparity between Renata's sentence and that of his co-offender. They found that the difference in the starting points was justified by the different roles played by the offenders, with Renata being the primary perpetrator of the violence. The difference in the final sentences also reflected the co-offender's age, her assistance to the police, and a full discount for her guilty plea. Finally, given the reduced sentence, the Court of Appeal considered that the minimum period of imprisonment should be adjusted to reflect two thirds of the sentence, resulting in a minimum period of five years and eight months.

In conclusion, the appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentence of nine and a half years imprisonment was quashed and replaced with a sentence of eight and a half years imprisonment, of which Renata is to serve a minimum of five years and eight months.

Orders