Man involved in aggravated robbery loses appeal

File photo / NZ Herald

A robber who tried to kick a pregnant woman in the head when she was in labour has lost his appeal against his sentence.

Ture Wairua Watene was sentenced to nine years in prison for the November 2011 aggravated robbery, in which he and three others broke into an Auckland house armed with a shotgun.

The woman, her husband and brother were in the process of leaving the house to take her to hospital after she'd gone into labour when they were confronted by the foursome, according to a Court of Appeal ruling released today.

They were threatened and escorted into a bedroom, where they were kept at gunpoint while the other three men searched the property.

The woman managed to call police on her mobile phone but, when she was discovered, Watene threatened to kill her and aimed a kick at her head. It was deflected by her husband.

The robbers fled with around $1500 in cash, two cell phones, a laptop, an iPod and various items of jewellery.

The four were pursued by police, and Watene was caught by police dogs in a bush reserve, where the shotgun and various other items were also recovered.

He argued he was only the driver, and had unwillingly taken part to pay off a debt incurred by his daughter.

"He said his daughter had gotten into some trouble with the other offenders and they came to him and asked if he wanted to earn some money to pay them back, so he went along with them," the Court of Appeal ruling said.

"During his police interview he said, 'the guy who used to go [out] with my daughter asked if I wanted to make some money. I didn't know they had a gun, I was only the driver'."

However, "several incriminating texts" were found on his mobile phone.

He was identified as the shortest of the four robbers, with the three victims describing him as doing "all of the talking and the giving of orders", as well as making threats.

Watene was jailed last year for his role in the aggravated robbery.

He appealed against both his conviction and his sentence, claiming he did not receive a fair trial and that the judge used a starting point for sentencing that was too high.

However, the Court of Appeal ruled that none of his arguments held up, and dismissed both appeals.