Uruamo v The King - [2023] NZCA 356

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA98/2023
[2023] NZCA 356

BETWEEN	LIAM URUAMO Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	25 July 2023
Court:	Collins, Lang and Woolford JJ
Counsel:	G H Vear and D J Taumihau for Appellant H D L Steele for Respondent
Judgment:	10 August 2023 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Woolford J)

On 1 July 2022, following a jury trial in the Auckland District Court, Mr Liam Uruamo was found guilty and convicted of aggravated robbery.[1] He subsequently pleaded guilty and was convicted of two unrelated charges of burglary.[2]
[1]Crimes Act 1961, s 235(b); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
[2]Section 231(1)(a); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
On 13 January 2023, Mr Uruamo was sentenced to five years and five months’ imprisonment on the above charges.[3] He now appeals against that sentence on the basis it is manifestly excessive.

Factual background

Aggravated robbery

[3]R v Uruamo [2022] NZDC 445 [Sentencing notes].

On 6 November 2019, the appellant and one unidentified co-offender entered Roop Darshan, an Indian fashion store located in Mt Roskill. Both offenders were wearing black face coverings to conceal their identities and were armed with hammers. They moved directly to the back of the store where jewellery was displayed in glass cabinets, used their hammers to smash the glass and began to steal a substantial amount of gold jewellery. Soon after, a third unidentified co-offender, also disguised and armed, joined in smashing cabinets and stealing jewellery. A staff member activated the store’s panic alarm and fog cannon security system. This caused all three offenders to flee from the store. The store’s staff were not injured. The jewellery stolen was valued in excess of $200,000.
The appellant was subject to a sentence of home detention at the time of the aggravated robbery. He was later convicted of breaching home detention and sentenced to one months’ imprisonment.

Burglaries

On 14 June 2021, the appellant had been released from prison on compassionate bail to attend his father’s tangihanga. He was required to return to prison on 15 June 2021. He did not. He was at liberty for the next eight months and subject to a warrant to arrest. It was during this time that he committed two burglaries.
On the morning of 7 December 2021, the appellant and two co-offenders broke into a residential address in Hillsborough by smashing a rear window leading into the basement of the property. They took $2,000 in cash and power tools valued at $500. While still inside the house, the offenders were disturbed by a witness, which caused them to decamp from the address through a gate in the back fence.
On the morning of 21 January 2022, the appellant and an unidentified co-offender entered a residential address in Mangere by forcing a window open. They took items valued at over $10,000 and $1,500 in cash before leaving via…

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 Uruamo v The King

Details

AGLC: Uruamo v The King [2023] NZCA 356
Case: [2023] NZCA 356
Decision Date: 10 August 2023 at 9.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Uruamo v The King, the appellant, Liam Uruamo, appealed against his sentence of five years and five months' imprisonment for aggravated robbery and two unrelated burglaries, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, with Collins, Lang, and Woolford JJ delivering judgment. Uruamo had been found guilty of aggravated robbery and two counts of burglary, and was sentenced by Judge Maxwell in the Auckland District Court. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive because it did not sufficiently take into account his youth, personal background, prospects of rehabilitation, and remorse.

The Court of Appeal examined the arguments for a youth discount, a separate discount for prospects of rehabilitation and remorse, and whether the overall sentence was within the appropriate range. The Court found that Uruamo's offending was highly premeditated and not impulsive, and that the youth discount was not appropriate in this case. The Court also found that the Judge had appropriately considered the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation and remorse, and had granted a 15% discount for personal mitigating factors, which included a "glimmer of remorse." The Court concluded that the sentence was within the range that could have been imposed and was not manifestly excessive.

In summary, the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the sentence of five years and five months' imprisonment was upheld.

Orders