Hearing: 20 August 2013
Court: White, Venning and Courtney JJ Counsel: C D Bean for First Appellant
G Boot for Second Appellant
J M Jelas for Respondent

Judgment: 2 September 2013 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application made by Tukino Te Rangi for an extension of time to appeal is granted.

B The appeal by Laurissa Tukaki is allowed to the extent that the reparation order is quashed. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.

C The appeal by Tukino Te Rangi is allowed. The sentence of nine years’

imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years is

quashed and substituted with a sentence of eight and a half years’

TUKAKI V R CA577/2012 AND TE RANGI V R CA71/2013 [2013] NZCA 411 [2 September 2013]

imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of four years nine

months. The reparation order is quashed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

Introduction

[1] On the evening of 6 March 2011 the appellants, Laurissa Tukaki and Tukino Te Rangi, along with a third person, committed an aggravated robbery of the Waikato Snooker and 8 Ball Club in Hamilton. They drove a stolen vehicle to the club. Ms Tukaki went to the locked glass door and sought entry. As soon as the door was unlocked, she held it open for Mr Te Rangi and the third offender to enter. Both Mr Te Rangi and the third offender were wearing full disguises. Mr Te Rangi was carrying a sawn-off shotgun. The employees and patrons of the club were threatened with the shotgun and one of the patrons was kicked. $16,000 in cash was taken from the safe and the staff members’ handbags were stolen. Ms Tukaki drove her co-offenders away. The cash was mainly split between Mr Te Rangi and the third offender. Some of the money was used to buy methamphetamine, which was shared among the three offenders.

[2] After a jury trial in the Hamilton District Court, Ms Tukaki and Mr Te Rangi were both convicted of aggravated robbery. In sentencing the Judge drew heavily on this Court’s decision in R v Mako.1 In terms of Mako the significant factors were the obvious level of planning and preparation. The offenders used a stolen car. They used Ms Tukaki as “bait” to gain access to the premises. Those actually carrying out the robbery were disguised. A shotgun (albeit unloaded) was used. It was likely that
significant numbers of people would be on the premises, as was the case. There were threats of violence. There was actual violence. The effect on the victims,
particularly the female staff members, was significant. These features, as the Judge

1 R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170 (CA).

identified in both sentencing hearings, fell within the kind of offending described at

[54]…

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 Tukaki v R

Details

AGLC: Tukaki v R [2013] NZCA 411
Case: [2013] NZCA 411
Decision Date: 2 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard appeals from Laurissa Tukaki and Tukino Te Rangi, who were convicted of aggravated robbery. The offenders, along with a third person, had committed the crime at the Waikato Snooker and 8 Ball Club in Hamilton on the evening of 6 March 2011. They used a stolen vehicle to drive to the club, with Ms Tukaki acting as bait to gain entry. Mr Te Rangi and the third offender entered the club disguised and armed with a sawn-off shotgun. Threats of violence and actual violence were directed at the staff and patrons, and $16,000 in cash was stolen. The offenders were convicted by a jury and sentenced in the Hamilton District Court. Both Ms Tukaki and Mr Te Rangi appealed their sentences on the grounds that they were manifestly excessive, and Mr Te Rangi also sought an extension of time to appeal.

The primary legal issues the Court of Appeal had to decide were whether the sentences imposed by the District Court were appropriate, and if not, what adjustments should be made to the sentences. Specifically, the Court considered the starting points, uplifts, minimum terms of imprisonment, and reparation orders imposed on the appellants.

The Court of Appeal found that while the starting points for both Ms Tukaki and Mr Te Rangi were within the appropriate range, the uplift in Mr Te Rangi's sentence was unnecessary. The Court concluded that the uplift did not adequately account for the fact that this was the first instance of violent offending by a relatively young offender. Additionally, the Court noted that the Crown's reliance on certain statements from a previous case was not appropriate for determining the treatment of youthful offenders in cases of aggravated robbery. The Court also found that the minimum period of imprisonment for Mr Te Rangi was excessive given the reduction in his sentence. The reparation orders for both appellants were deemed impractical and were quashed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals of both Ms Tukaki and Mr Te Rangi, substituting the sentences imposed by the District Court with new sentences, and quashing the reparation orders.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were to quash the reparation orders for both Ms Tukaki and Mr Te Rangi. The appeal of Ms Tukaki was otherwise dismissed, while the appeal of Mr Te Rangi was allowed with a new sentence of eight and a half years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of four years nine months.

Orders