Tribble v Police - [2016] NZHC 187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2015-488-41
CRI-2015-488-42
CRI-2015-488-43

CRI-2015-488-44 [2016] NZHC 187

ISRAEL JOHN TRIBBLE

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 3 February 2016

Appearances:

A Dooney for the Appellant
M A Jarman-Taylor and J W Wall for the Respondent

Judgment:

16 February 2016

Reissued:

18 February 2016

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 February 2016 at 4.45 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Solicitors:
Marsden, Woods, Inskip and Smith, Whangarei.

Counsel:
A Dooney, Whangarei.

TRIBBLE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 187 [16 February 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Israel Tribble was convicted of aggravated robbery using a firearm, under s 235(c) of the Crimes Act.1 He pleaded guilty, and was sentenced on 12 November
2015 to five years and three months’ imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of two years.

[2] Mr Tribble now appeals that sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive.

Factual background

[3] On 11 August 2015, the victim was at the Hilltop Dairy in Dargaville where she worked. Her home is attached to the dairy.

[4] Mr Tribble and his co-offender Mr Paniora planned to rob the dairy, discussing it over text with associates. Mr Paniora was to be the driver and pick Mr Tribble up afterward. For the purpose of the robbery, Mr Tribble obtained a double-barrelled shotgun, which had had the barrel shortened, ammunition, a carry bag and some items of disguise.

[5] Around 4.15 pm, Mr Paniora drove Mr Tribble near the store. Once nearing the shop, Mr Tribble pulled a red bandanna over his face. Once inside, he took the shotgun out of the bag.

[6] As there was no-one in the store, Mr Tribble went through a hallway into the victim’s home. He pointed the shotgun at her and demanded access to the safe. On being told there was no safe, Mr Tribble demanded that she come back into the shop area, and requested the money from the till. The victim opened the till, removed the cash, and placed it in the defendant’s carry bag. Mr Tribble then requested the cigarettes from the display cupboard, which the victim also placed in the bag. Mr Tribble pointed the shotgun at her while making these requests.

[7] Mr Tribble then ran out of the shop, to the nearby road where Mr Paniora was waiting. The amount taken was approximately $200 in cash, and 20 packets of cigarettes.

[8] The Police executed a search warrant at a house on 21 August, and located both men there as well as a number of items used in the robbery, such as the bandanna, carry bag and shotgun. When asked, Mr Tribble admitted some of the facts and stated that he needed money. He claimed he had received the shotgun from an unknown associate about a year earlier and had cut it down.

Pre-sentence report

[9] Mr Tribble was found to have little insight into his offending. Key…

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 Tribble v Police

Details

AGLC: Tribble v Police [2016] NZHC 187
Case: [2016] NZHC 187
Decision Date: 16 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Israel John Tribble appeals his sentence for aggravated robbery of a dairy store using a firearm, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The District Court Judge had sentenced Tribble to five years and three months’ imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of two years. Tribble submits that a starting point of four years’ imprisonment would have been appropriate, given the lack of actual violence and the limited sum taken in the robbery. The Crown submits that the seven-year starting point, although at the top end, was not out of range. The court must allow the appeal if satisfied that there is an error in the sentence imposed and a different sentence should be imposed. The court found that the seven-year starting point was too high and substituted it with a sentence of four years and two months’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 20 months. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was quashed and substituted.

Orders