Anderson v The Queen - [2019] NZHC 620

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2019-419-000012

[2019] NZHC 620

BETWEEN
HONE PIRIPI ANDERSON

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 25 March 2019

Counsel:

GA Walsh for Anderson BT Vaili for Respondent

Judgment:

29 March 2019

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 29 March 2019 at 10 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton. GA Walsh, Hamilton.

ANDERSON v R [2019] NZHC 620 [29 March 2019]

The appeal

[1] Judge R L B Spear sentenced Mr Anderson to a term of four years’ imprisonment.1 Mr Anderson twice injured his partner the same evening, including after Police intervention. Mr Anderson appeals. He contends his sentence is manifestly excessive, largely because the Judge adopted too high a starting point. Mr Anderson also invites attention to the uplift for his criminal record, and guilty-plea discount.

[2]The appeal involves a second-strike.

Background

[3] Mr Anderson and the complainant were in a relationship. They have two young children. Mr Anderson and the complainant lived apart at the time.

[4] At approximately 5.30 pm on 18 October 2017, Mr Anderson went to the complainant’s home to see their son—uninvited. The complainant told him to leave. An argument developed. Then a struggle. Mr Anderson grabbed the complainant’s left hand. He bit “down hard” on her little finger. Mr Anderson then left.

[5] Photographs of the injury were shown to Judge Spear, who referred to “a significant laceration”.2 The complainant suffered no permanent injury.

[6] Police were called. They issued a Police Safety Order. It prohibited Mr Anderson from going to the complainant’s home for five days. But after midnight, Mr Anderson returned to the complainant’s home. He verbally abused the complainant, grabbed her by the hair, and pulled her from a chair onto the ground. Mr Anderson then repeatedly stomped on her head. Mr Anderson also grabbed the complainant by the throat and strangled her.3 She lost consciousness. Family

1 R v Anderson [2019] NZDC 1501.
2 At [3].
3 The summary of facts says Mr Anderson used his fingers to “pinch” both sides of the complainant’s throat with such pressure she lost consciousness. Strangling remains a convenient description.

members intervened. Mr Anderson was promptly arrested. He told Police, “Yeah I assaulted her, so what.”

[7] The complainant suffered “significant bruising to her face”. She required hospital treatment. Photographic evidence implies a very bad assault.

[8] Mr Anderson ultimately pleaded guilty to two charges: wounding with intent to injure in relation to the biting,4 and injuring with intent to injure in relation to the post-Police Safety Order attack.5 I call the former the biting charge; the latter the injuring charge. The biting charge constituted a second-strike.

Starting point

[9] The Judge adopted a three-year starting point for the injuring charge. He added 18 months’ imprisonment for the biting charge (after ameliorating the uplift for totality), producing a global starting point of four and a half years.

[10] Mr Anderson contends…

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 Anderson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Anderson v The Queen [2019] NZHC 620
Case: [2019] NZHC 620
Decision Date: 29 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hone Piripi Anderson appeals his sentence of four years' imprisonment for injuring his partner with intent to injure, and for biting her finger with intent to injure, which constituted a second-strike. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly whether the starting point was too high, and if there was an appropriate uplift for his violent criminal record and guilty plea discount. The court found that the starting point was correctly determined, as the two offences, committed within a short period against the same victim, should not be considered in isolation but as a single sequence of aggravated violence. The court also found that the uplift for the appellant's violent record did not result in double counting, as parole inadmissibility only attached to the biting charge. Furthermore, the guilty plea discount was correctly applied, despite the appellant's contention that it should have been greater. The appeal was dismissed, and the court noted errors in the warrant of commitment regarding the charges.

The Hon Justice Downs dismissed the appeal and noted errors in the warrant of commitment. The appellant, Hone Piripi Anderson, will remain subject to the original sentence of four years' imprisonment, with the noted errors in the warrant of commitment to be corrected.

Orders