Travis v Police - [2017] NZHC 1607

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE ROTORUA-NUI-Ā-KAHU ROHE

CRI-2017-470-000026 [2017] NZHC 1607

BETWEEN
TONI TRAVIS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 9 October 2017

Appearances:

Bill Nabney for the Appellant
Ashley Shore for the Respondent

Judgment:

31 October 2017

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J [Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 October 2017 at 2:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Date:

TRAVIS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 1607 [31 October 2017]

Introduction

[1] Toni Travis appeals the sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment imposed by Judge I D R Cameron in the District Court at Tauranga on a charge of aggravated robbery.1

[2] Ms Travis was charged as a party to the aggravated robbery of a general store in Whangamata. Although she did not enter the shop it was accepted she was involved in the planning and acted as the getaway driver.

[3] Mr Nabney, for Ms Travis, submits that adopting the same starting point as the other offender of four years was excessive. Furthermore, he submits that insufficient recognition was given for youth, remorse and previous good character. Mr Nabney submits that had sufficient and proper allowance been given to these mitigating factors an end sentence of 19 months would have been appropriate, thereby bringing Ms Travis within the jurisdiction of home detention.

The offending

[4] The Crown’s summary of facts reveals the following.

[5] Ms Travis and her co-defendant, Mr Ratahi, lived in Auckland. Both were unemployed. Ms Travis’ mother lives in Whangamata.

[6] On 29 November 2016 Ms Travis and Mr Ratahi travelled to Whangamata to stay with Ms Travis’ mother.

[7] Two days later on the afternoon of 1 December 2016 the couple borrowed

Ms Travis’ mother’s car telling her they were going to visit friends in Whangamata. Before they left, Mr Ratahi picked up an axe from the house. He was wearing a number of jackets and hoodies which, combined with sunglasses, operated to
effectively disguise his appearance.

1 R v Travis [2017] NZDC 14751.

[8] The couple drove into town and parked a block away from the general store.

Mr Ratahi, with the axe hidden under his clothing, walked to the store while Ms Travis remained sitting in the driver’s seat of the car.

[9] As he approached the store a member of the public saw him acting suspiciously and followed him towards the store.

[10] Once inside the store Mr Ratahi pulled out the axe and walked up to the counter where the two shop assistants were working. There was no one else in the shop.

[11] Mr Ratahi pointed the axe at the two men and demanded they open the till. They complied. He stuffed approximately $300 in cash into his pockets and turned to leave.

[12] The member of the public who had seen Mr Ratahi enter the shop realised what was happening and yelled out.…

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 Travis v Police

Details

AGLC: Travis v Police [2017] NZHC 1607
Case: [2017] NZHC 1607
Decision Date: 31 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Toni Travis appeals against the two and a half years' imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge I D R Cameron in the District Court at Tauranga for her involvement in an aggravated robbery. Ms Travis was charged as a party to the robbery of a general store in Whangamata, acting as the getaway driver. Travis’ counsel, Mr Nabney, argues that the starting point of four years was excessive and that insufficient recognition was given to her youth, remorse, and previous good character. Mr Nabney submits that an appropriate sentence would have been 19 months, which would have allowed for home detention.

The court considers whether the sentencing judge should have distinguished between the roles of Ms Travis and her co-defendant, Mr Ratahi. The court finds that Ms Travis' involvement in the planning and her role as the getaway driver make her equally culpable to Mr Ratahi. The court also examines whether sufficient credit was given for Ms Travis' youth, remorse, and previous good character. While the court acknowledges that youth can warrant a discount, it finds that the 20% discount given by the sentencing judge was appropriate. The court also notes that the 20% discount for the guilty plea, although not entered at the earliest opportunity, was generous.

The appeal is dismissed, and the original sentence of two and a half years' imprisonment is upheld.

Orders