Barnes-Manuel v The King - [2025] NZHC 1603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2025-488-37

[2025] NZHC 1603

BETWEEN
SAVAY BARNES-MANUEL

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 9 June 2025

Appearances:

G Duff as agent for S McColgan for the Appellant P Hamber for the Crown

Judgment:

18 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF ROBINSON J

[Sentence appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 June 2025 at 11:00 am

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
S McColgan, Auckland | G Duff, Auckland MWIS, Whangārei

BARNES-MANUEL v R [2025] NZHC 1603 [18 June 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Savay Barnes-Manuel pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1 On 4 February 2025 Judge G Tomlinson sentenced Mr Barnes-Manuel to four years and nine months’ imprisonment.2 Mr Barnes-Manuel appeals. He says that the starting point was excessive.

The facts

[2] Mr Barnes-Manuel was charged alongside a co-defendant, Mr Lawrence Wiki-Newman. Mr Barnes-Manuel was 22 at the time of the offending, while Mr Wiki-Newman was 19. Mr Barnes-Manuel has no criminal history.

[3] A member of Mr Wiki-Newman’s family lent a motor vehicle to the victim. It had not been returned. Mr Barnes-Manuel and Mr Wiki-Newman went to the victim’s address to confront him. When they confronted him, the victim fled on foot. Messrs Barnes-Manuel and Wiki-Newman chased him in their car. Mr Barnes-Manuel was the driver.

[4] When the victim fled up a walking track the pair got out of the car and chased him. Mr Wiki-Newman was armed with a claw hammer and a glass bottle. Mr Barnes-Manuel was armed with a steel chain. Mr Wiki-Newman reached the victim first. He threw the bottle and hit the victim.

[5] The Police Summary of Facts, which Mr Barnes-Manuel accepted for the purposes of sentencing, records that when Mr Barnes-Manuel approached the victim the chain was still visible in his left hand. However, before striking the victim Mr Barnes-Manuel appears to have thrown the chain away. It is not visible in his hand during the assault.

[6] Mr Barnes-Manuel began punching the victim to the face. Both defendants punched the victim as he fell to his knees. They continued to punch him until he fell to the ground.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1). Maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 R v Barnes-Manuel [2025] NZDC 1939.

[7]Once the victim fell to the ground, Mr Barnes-Manuel kicked him.

[8] While the victim was on the ground, Mr Wiki-Newman repeatedly kicked, punched, and stomped on the victim’s head, body and legs. Mr Wiki-Newman struck the victim multiple times with the hammer, including to hit his back, head and arm, until the victim was unconscious.

[9] The assault continued until Mr Barnes-Manuel pushed Mr Wiki-Newman away. Mr Wiki-Newman pushed past and kicked and stomped the victim again. Mr Barnes-Manuel then kicked the victim in the head one further time.

[10] Mr Barnes-Manuel dragged the unconscious victim to the path and placed him on his side. As he did so,…

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 Barnes-Manuel v The King

Details

AGLC: Barnes-Manuel v The King [2025] NZHC 1603
Case: [2025] NZHC 1603
Decision Date: 18 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Savay Barnes-Manuel appeals against his conviction for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He argues that the starting point of ten years' imprisonment was excessive. The High Court of New Zealand must allow the appeal if it is satisfied that there has been an error in the sentence imposed and that a different sentence should be imposed. Otherwise, the appeal must be dismissed. The Court must consider whether the sentence is manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal's judgment in Taueki is a guideline judgment for sentencing people convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The appropriate starting point for band 3 offending is between nine and 14 years of imprisonment. The starting point of ten years was at the lower end of band 3 and the higher end of band 2. The Court found that the sentence was not excessive and dismissed the appeal. The end sentence of four years and nine months was a proportionate response to serious offending.

Orders