Allen v The King - [2024] NZHC 1972

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-409-93

[2024] NZHC 1972

BETWEEN
TREIK RAKENA ALLEN

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 11 July 2024

Appearances:

D J Matthews for Appellant B W D Alexander for Crown

Judgment:

17 July 2024

Reissued:

15 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

ALLEN v R [2024] NZHC 1972 [17 July 2024]

Introduction

[1] Mr Treik Allen was sentenced on 11 January 2024 to five years five months’ imprisonment on one representative charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, having pleaded guilty during a judge-alone trial.1 Mr Allen appeals the sentence. He says he should have received credit for his personal background and the impact of parental incarceration on his daughter. He seeks to rely on affidavits filed in this Court.

The offending

[2] At midnight on 12 June 2022, Mr Allen was at a bus stop with a woman. The victims and their friends, planning to go into town, walked down the street from the first victim’s nearby flat and started speaking with Mr Allen and the woman he was with.

[3] Following an initial friendly conversation, Mr Allen’s attitude changed. He presented a knife and told them to back off. He poked the tip of the knife into the back of the second victim and said he was going to “shank” him.

[4] The first victim pulled the second victim away. Mr Allen said, “what’s up G, I’ll fuck you up”, and moved towards the first victim in a stabbing motion. The first victim picked up a bottle of Jack Daniels and told Mr Allen he would put down the bottle if he put down the knife. They did so, but when the first victim approached Mr Allen to shake his hand, Mr Allen punched him in the face. The first victim reactively punched Mr Allen and knocked him to the ground.

[5] Three or four of Mr Allen’s friends arrived and got involved in the fight. At some point, Mr Allen picked the knife up off the ground and joined in where the first victim and a third victim were assaulted. The third victim was confronted by Mr Allen and another man wearing a black hoodie, both of whom were holding a knife at one stage. When the first and third victims managed to separate themselves and get to safety, they realised they had each been stabbed. The third victim had been stabbed in

1 R v Allen [2024] NZDC 385; and Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

the left armpit area, which penetrated muscles and required surgery. The first victim had been stabbed in the buttock and required six stitches.

[6] Mr Allen denied involvement and claimed he was not at the bus stop that night, rather he was asleep at one…

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 Allen v The King

Details

AGLC: Allen v The King [2024] NZHC 1972
Case: [2024] NZHC 1972
Decision Date: 17 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Treik Allen appeals his five years and five months’ imprisonment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, arguing he should have received credit for his personal background and the impact of his incarceration on his daughter. The Crown opposes the appeal and the application to adduce fresh evidence. The appeal is out of time but leave to appeal out of time is granted. The appellant seeks to rely on two affidavits to argue he should have received a discount for his personal circumstances and the impact of his incarceration on his daughter. The Crown submits the affidavits are not credible, not fresh, and that the sentence is not manifestly excessive. The court declines to admit the affidavits as fresh evidence. The appellant’s affidavit is not fresh and does not establish deprivation or trauma warranting a discrete discount in the sentence. The former partner’s affidavit is not fresh and the court finds the sentence is not manifestly excessive if it is not admitted. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders