Bartlett v The Queen - [2015] NZHC 1536

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2015-463-32 [2015] NZHC 1536

BETWEEN
ROBERT HAMIORA BARTLETT

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 2 July 2015

Counsel:

R O Gowing for appellant
A J Pollett for respondent

Judgment:

2 July 2015

ORALJUDGMENT OF KATZ J [Sentence appeal]

Solicitors: Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
Gowing & Co Lawyers Limited, Whakatane

BARTLETT v THE QUEEN [2015] NZHC 1536 [2 July 2015]

Introduction

[1] Robert Bartlett was sentenced on 22 April 2015 to five years’ imprisonment on one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm under s 188 of the Crimes Act 1961.1 He appeals that sentence on the grounds that it is manifestly excessive as a result of a starting point being adopted that was too high.

Factual background

[2] On 26 February 2015, in the early evening, Mr Bartlett arrived home drunk. He picked up a knife from the kitchen, and went to the bedroom where his wife was attempting to sleep and laid down next to her. He produced the knife from his trousers, and said “If I can’t have you, nobody can”. He then repeatedly attempted to stab his wife around the abdomen. She defended herself, including by covering up with a duvet cover but she was eventually stabbed once in the lower abdomen.

[3] The commotion alerted their daughters, who ran to the bedroom to investigate. They found their mother on the floor beside the bed with Mr Bartlett on top of her holding a knife near her head. One of the daughters saw Mr Bartlett attempting to stab her mother in the stomach area a second time. She intervened and attempted to pull her father off her mother. The other daughter called the police. Mr Bartlett’s wife was taken to Whakatane Hospital for treatment.

[4] Surgery was required to ascertain the extent of any injuries. It revealed that the knife had penetrated the skin and fatty tissue, but no internal organs had been penetrated. As a result, no life-threatening injuries were caused.

[5] Mr Bartlett left the house following the incident and immediately made his way to the police station.

District Court Decision

[6] Judge Wolff, in the District Court at Whakatane, sentenced Mr Bartlett to five

years’ imprisonment on the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily

harm. Unfortunately the sound recording system was inoperative during the sentencing, meaning that full sentencing notes are unavailable. Judge Wolff did, however, summarise his key findings and sentencing approach in a subsequent Minute.

[7] It was common ground before Judge Wolff that the offending fell within band 2 of R v Taueki (being 5 to 10 years imprisonment). Judge Wolff adopted a starting point of seven years and three months imprisonment based on the guidance in R v Taueki regarding attacks which fall within the category of “premeditated domestic assaults”.2

[8] The Judge allowed deductions for Mr Bartlett’s early guilty plea, remorse and in recognition of the fact that he went straight to…

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 Bartlett v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bartlett v The Queen [2015] NZHC 1536
Case: [2015] NZHC 1536
Decision Date: 2 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Robert Bartlett against his sentence of five years' imprisonment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm was dismissed by the High Court. Bartlett had attacked his wife with a knife in a premeditated domestic assault, causing moderate injury that did not result in serious or lasting harm. The District Court had set a starting point of seven years and three months based on the guidelines in R v Taueki, which deals with grievous bodily harm offences. Bartlett's counsel argued that this starting point was too high given the moderate nature of the violence and injury. The High Court found that the starting point adopted by the District Court was within the appropriate range according to the Taueki guidelines. The Court considered factors such as the premeditation, vulnerability of the victim, and use of a weapon, concluding that a starting point in the middle of band 2 was suitable. The discounts applied for Bartlett's early guilty plea, remorse and reporting of the crime were deemed appropriate. Therefore, the sentence was not manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders