R v Uasi [2017] NZDC 7061 (27 February 2017)

Last Updated: 30 August 2017

EDITORIAL NOTE: SOME NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED .

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND

CRI-2015-004-009650 [2017] NZDC 7061

THE QUEEN

v

_{WILLIAM UASI}

Hearing:	27 February 2017
Appearances:	R Thompson for the Crown D Dickingson for the Defendant
Judgment:	27 February 2017

_{NOTES OF JUDGE R G RONAYNE ON SENTENCING}

[1] Mr Uasi, you were found guilty by a jury on 20 January 2017 on a charge of kidnapping under s 209 Crimes Act 1961, the maximum penalty for that is 14 years’ imprisonment; one charge of robbery under s 234 Crimes Act, with a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and; one charge of assault with intent to rob under s 236 Crimes Act, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. You are also for sentence, in addition to those matters, on a charge of a Crimes Act assault in an unrelated matter which I will come to at the end.

[2] I heard the evidence, Mr Uasi, and I take the view having done so that the previously filed summary of facts is accurate. The victim was known to you through an associate, [your associate]. The victim had met you previously believing you to

_{be [your associate]’s boyfriend.}

R v WILLIAM UASI [2017] NZDC 7061 [27 February 2017]

[3] On the evening of Wednesday 2 December 2015 you were at Roberton Lodge which is a rental accommodation in Roberton Road, Avondale. At about 7.30 that day the victim had received a text message from [your associate] asking him to visit her at the Roberton Lodge. He drove there in his Hyundai i30 vehicle and he got there at approximately 9.30 pm. The precise times matter little. [your associate] was with you and an unknown female. [Your associate] asked the victim to take her and you and the unknown female to another location in Auckland. He agreed. At an unknown time the victim returned to the lodge with his three passengers and [your associate] insisted that he come into the address. He wanted to leave but reluctantly accepted the invitation and entered a small room at the rear of the address. Both you and [your associate] and the unknown female also entered the room. You instructed the victim to sit on a chair that was in the room. He declined. You shut the door to the room, you stood in front of it and you warned the complainant to listen to you and not make you angry. He sat in the chair. You then opened a small fridge which was in the room and removed a red shopping bag. From that shopping bag you removed three lengths of rope and you told the females to leave the room. An unknown male then entered the room and held the victim’s arms down at his sides. Using the rope and a rolled up pair of denim jeans you tied the victim’s arms to the chair. You went through his pockets and you removed various items such as car keys to the Hyundai I have already mentioned and an ANZ bank card. You asked him for his PIN number to the bank card and he supplied it. You rolled up a second pair of denim jeans and you tied them around the victim’s head and mouth so he could not speak. You turned the chair over so that the victim was lying on his back on the floor. You warned him not to make any noise and you left the room. After about 10 minutes you returned to the room with the unknown male. You checked the ropes and while the victim was still tied to the chair you lifted him up onto the single bed and placed him on his right side. You and the other male left the room. About 40 minutes later you returned to the room with the other male. You removed the cover from the victim’s mouth and you asked him where the vehicles were which related to the set of keys that the victim left in the side console of the Hyundai. The victim told you that they were in storage. You asked what the two gold keys on the set of keys were. The victim told you that he did not know. You punched him once in the left side of his face and said words to the effect, “Don’t play with me, I know what they are for.”

[4] The victim revealed that they were for a safety deposit box and the location of it. You punched the victim again in his right eye and left the room. The victim was left alone in the room for approximately three hours before he was able to loosen the bonds around his ankles and get to his feet. His upper body was still bound to the chair and he used his mouth to open the door to the room and escape from the property. He suffered bruising to his left cheek area. He suffered a bruised right eye socket and discolouration to this right eye ball which affected his vision. He had a cut to his lip. He had bruising and grazes to his arms and legs.

[5] You have a four page list of previous convictions. No uplift is sought in relation to this main offending resulting from any of those prior convictions but they do have relevance in relation to the last matter that I will deal with because you have previously been sent to prison for common assault and injuring with intent to injure. However, I note that those were some time ago.

[6] I have already read an earlier victim impact statement which makes it quite clear that the victim is terrified of you and I have the updated version as well and I take that into account. Clearly denunciation and deterrence are important in your case as is the need to hold you accountable and to protect the community from you and people who are inclined to behave in this way.

[7] The Crown submits that I should adopt a global starting point of around five years. Various cases are drawn to the Court’s attention. None are strictly on all fours but that is often the case. They do share some common features and provide guidance. Here, the restraint and the attacks to the head of a totally helpless victim are very significant features.

[8] Your counsel submits that there is, in reality, little difference between your position and the position of the Crown with regard to aggravating features aside from matters of emphasis and degree. However, it is submitted on your behalf that the cases relied upon by the Crown in submitting the starting point to which I have already made reference are said to be distinguishable on their facts and illustrative of more serious offending.

[9] Here, the aggravating features are these; first, there was considerable planning and premeditation in your offending. I am satisfied that the offending involved organising the involvement of others including another man. That finding is not inconsistent with the jury taking the view that the evidence against [your associate] did not reach the high criminal standard. You had a place organised, you had equipment in place, you had help on hand, you had a plan to lure the victim to the place where you had organised these things. This considerable planning and premeditation is a factor present to a high level. Secondly, you engaged the assistance of another man at the very least. The intimidation factor involved in the presence of another man is significant. I consider this aspect of the matter present to a low to moderate degree. Thirdly, the detention duration was significant. It involved the victim being tied up to a chair, having been punched at least twice in the face by you, for several hours. That potentially risked a more serious outcome. Your actions were callous. That aspect is present to a high degree. Fourthly, there is an aggravating factor of the use of violence. While it is inherent, up to a point in the charges, the degree of restraint was considerable and while completely restrained and utterly helpless you punched the victim at least twice in the face. Those were cowardly actions involving a totally vulnerable victim. This factor is present to a moderately high degree. Fifthly, the property stolen was significant. The car was recovered quite badly damaged two weeks later. Reparation is pointless. This factor is present to a moderately high degree. Often a person’s car is a very significant asset to them and I do not imagine it was anything other than that for the victim. Lastly, there is the impact on the victim.

[10] I identify no mitigating factors relating to the offending or to you. Plainly there is a need for denunciation and deterrence of this sort of conduct. There is a need to hold you accountable for the harm that you have done and there is, given your attitude, a need to protect the community.

[11] I mention your attitude. I have a pre-sentence report in which it is noted you have maintained your innocence and denied your involvement in the alleged offending. Hardly surprisingly the probation officer could not assess any remorse present. Your risk of harm is assessed as high considering the current charges and your previous convictions which involved direct physical harm to another. Your

likelihood of reoffending is assessed as high because of your frequent offending habit which seems to have occurred at nearly yearly intervals and your lack of insight into your offending pathway. Although the Court asked for an electronic monitoring assessment you declined to consent.

[12] In my view the appropriate starting point for the totality of the offending of kidnapping, robbery and assault with intent to rob is one of four years and six months. There being no mitigating features, the sentence will be that. I will come back to that.

[13] Additionally, you are for sentence on a charge of Crimes Act assault CRN15004012282. You pleaded guilty to that charge after it was amended from a male assaults charge. At approximately 3.00 pm on 20 September you were at an Avondale address. At that address was your ex partner, [your associate], who I have already referred to. You approached her and asked for some documents. A verbal argument developed between you and the victim and that escalated into a physical confrontation. You picked up a bamboo back scratcher that was lying nearby and you threw it in her direction with enough force to break it in two. She did not suffer any injuries as a result.

[14] Mr Uasi, while this common assault charge does you no credit, it is not of such a nature given the overall situation that you are in today to justify uplifting your sentence in any way. On that charge you are sentenced to one month imprisonment, that will be concurrent on the sentence I impose on the other charges.

[15] On the kidnapping charge you are sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment. On the robbery charge you are sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment. On the assault with intent to rob you are sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.

R G Ronayne

District Court Judge