The Queen v Taylor and Taia - [2009] NZCA 586

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA404/2009
CA431/2009
[2009] NZCA 586
THE QUEEN
v
WHETU TAYLOR
RAHUI PAUL TAIA
Hearing:2 November 2009

Court:William Young P, Chisholm and Priestley JJ
Counsel:D G Slater for Mr Taylor

H T Young for Mr Taia
M J Inwood for Crown

Judgment:11 December 2009 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeals are dismissed.
___________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by William Young P)
Introduction
[1]        In the early hours of Sunday 23 November 2008, the two appellants approached the victim. He was sitting in a bus shelter. He had with him a bicycle and a backpack. The two appellants spoke briefly to him and then began punching him. The victim tried to escape but Rahui Taia sought to continue the assault. At this point Whetu Taylor told Mr Taia to leave the victim alone. They then left the area taking both the backpack and bicycle with them.   During the incident, Mr Taia assaulted the victim using a beer bottle.
[2]        Not long afterwards, the appellants were located by the police hiding in a tent on the front lawn of an address within two blocks of where the offending had taken place.
[3]        The upshot of the legal process was as follows:
(a)On 1 May 2009 Mr Taia pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and injuring with intent to injure;
(b)Mr Taylor was found guilty following trial of aggravated robbery and was discharged on a count alleging injuring with intent to injure; and
(c)Both pleaded guilty to a summary charge of being found on a property without reasonable excuse.

[4]        Judge Doherty sentenced Mr Taylor to three and a half years imprisonment from a starting point of three years, which was uplifted by six months for previous offending. In the case of Mr Taia, the Judge started at four years (which encompassed the injuring charge), applied a six month uplift for his previous convictions before making a 25 per cent reduction for personal mitigating factors (guilty plea, offer to pay reparation and attempts at rehabilitation) resulting in a final sentence of three years four months imprisonment.
[5]        Both now appeal against sentence.
The basis of the appeals
[6]        The primary focus of the appeal on behalf of Mr Taylor was that the end result (under which the more culpable Mr Taia received a lesser sentence) is unacceptable. Associated with this argument is the contention that Mr Taylor was not practically able to plead guilty to aggravated robbery because he faced an allegation of being directly implicated in the use of the beer bottle on the victim (which was reflected in the injuring with intent charge).
[7]        The basis of the appeal by Mr Taia is that the starting points for both appellants were too high and that, in his case, the starting point should not have been higher than three and a half years imprisonment.
[8]        On this basis we propose to discuss the appeals by reference to:
(a)The starting points adopted;
(b)The…

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 The Queen v Taylor and Taia 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: [2009] NZCA 586
Decision Date: 11 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen v Taylor and Taia is a case in which the Court of Appeal of New Zealand addressed the appeals of Whetu Taylor and Rahui Paul Taia against their respective sentences for aggravated robbery and related charges. The two appellants had assaulted a victim in a bus shelter, using violence and a beer bottle. Taylor intervened to stop the assault while Taia continued to assault the victim. Following their apprehension, Taia pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and injuring with intent to injure, while Taylor was found guilty of aggravated robbery following a trial but was discharged on a count of injuring with intent to injure. Both appellants pleaded guilty to a summary charge of being found on a property without reasonable excuse. The sentencing judge imposed a three and a half year imprisonment term on Taylor, uplifted by six months for previous offending, and a three year four months imprisonment term on Taia, which incorporated a reduction for his guilty plea.

The appellants argued that the disparity in their sentences was unacceptable, with Taylor claiming he was compelled to go to trial due to the injuring charge and Taia contending that the starting points for both were too high. The Court of Appeal examined the starting points, adjustments, and disparity of the sentences. The starting points were found to be within the permissible range, and the Court did not accept Taylor's argument that he should have received a discount for a plea of guilty which he never made or offered. The Court also found no issue with the disparity in the sentences, as the starting points reflected the differences in the charges and culpability of the two appellants, and the differential in relation to personal considerations and the plea of guilty was justified.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of both Taylor and Taia, upholding the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge. The Court's decision reinforces the importance of considering the severity of the crimes, the culpability of the offenders, and the mitigating and aggravating factors in determining appropriate sentences for aggravated robbery and related charges.

Orders