Thompson v R - [2015] NZCA 234

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA368/2014
[2015] NZCA 234

BETWEEN	SEAN CONRAD THOMPSON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA389/2014
BETWEEN	ISAAC PAPAROA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	8 June 2015
Court:	Harrison, Andrews and Gilbert JJ
Counsel:	D A Reece for Mr Thompson I A Jayanandan for Mr Paparoa M D Downs for the Respondent
Judgment:	11 June 2015 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Both appeals are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harrison J)

Introduction

Sean Thompson and Isaac Paparoa pleaded or were found guilty after a trial before a Judge and jury at the Auckland District Court on one charge of aggravated robbery involving a firearm, one charge of theft and in Mr Thompson’s case one charge of unlawful possession of ammunition. Both were convicted and sentenced by Judge Ronayne to terms of eight years and three months imprisonment.[1] The Judge also imposed minimum periods of imprisonment on Mr Thompson of four years and three months and on Mr Paparoa of three years and 10 months. Both men appeal against the finite sentences on the ground that they were manifestly excessive; and against the minimum sentences on the ground that they were not appropriate.

Facts

[1]R v Paparoa DC Auckland CRI-2011-044-6244, 6 June 2014.

In early May 2011 Messrs Paparoa and Thompson travelled in a vehicle following the route of a security van to a commercial property in Mairangi Bay. They were planning a robbery of the van about a week later. Shortly afterwards that day they stole a phone and a laptop from a store in Birkenhead to a total value of $1,800.
A week later a vehicle worth $5,500 was stolen. It was used as one of two getaway vehicles for the robbery. Messrs Paparoa and Thompson and a third man drove to the Mairangi Bay premises. Mr Thompson, who was disguised, presented a firearm at a security guard and after a struggle stole $3,300. He and the third man drove away in one getaway car which they abandoned when they reached the second getaway vehicle driven by Mr Paparoa.
In sentencing, Judge Ronayne adopted a starting point of eight years imprisonment for the aggravated robbery charge, adding another three months for the theft charge. He was satisfied that there were 10 related aggravating factors. Among them were planning and premeditation, use of a disguise and a weapon, targeting premises or persons, violence or threatening violence, victim vulnerability, the property stolen and extent of recovery, and the extent of emotional harm. Both men were fortunate that the Judge was not satisfied to the requisite standard that the firearm was loaded.

Decision

Mr Reece and Ms Jayanandan, for Messrs Thompson and Paparoa respectively, submit that the Judge failed to follow this Court’s statement in its guideline judgment in Mako v R:[2]
[54] Different combinations of the features of the offending in the present case can be taken by way of example to indicate appropriate starting point levels.…

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 Thompson v R

Details

AGLC: Thompson v The Queen [2015] NZCA 234
Case: [2015] NZCA 234
Decision Date: 11 June 2015 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellants Sean Conrad Thompson and Isaac Paparoa appeal against their convictions and sentences for aggravated robbery involving a firearm, theft, and unlawful possession of ammunition. Both appellants were convicted and sentenced by Judge Ronayne to eight years and three months imprisonment, with minimum periods of imprisonment for Thompson of four years and three months and for Paparoa of three years and ten months. The appellants argue that their sentences are manifestly excessive and that the minimum periods of imprisonment are not appropriate. The central legal issues before the court were whether the starting point of eight years for the aggravated robbery charge was correct and whether the minimum periods of imprisonment were justified. The court held that the starting point of eight years was within the appropriate range, given the high level of culpability and the need for denunciation and deterrence. The court also found no error in the Judge's analysis or exercise of discretion regarding the minimum periods of imprisonment, noting that Paparoa's lesser minimum period reflected his personal circumstances and steps towards rehabilitation. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.

Orders