Boyes v Police - [2021] NZHC 2818

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2021-412-000034

[2021] NZHC 2818

BETWEEN
JORDAN REMUS BOYES

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 18 October 2021

Appearances:

S A Saunderson-Warner for the Appellant R D Smith for the Respondent

Judgment:

18 October 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Jordan Boyes, appeals against a sentence of two years and seven months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Robinson in the District Court at Dunedin. He had pleaded guilty to charges of assault on a person in a family relationship, assault with intent to injure, strangulation and wilful damage. He appeals on the ground the sentence was manifestly excessive

Background

[2] Turning now to the background facts in this matter, the charges stem from five separate incidents of domestic violence. On 21 September 2020 Mr Boyes was the driver of a vehicle and the victim, his partner, was a passenger. An argument broke out and Mr Boyes pulled the vehicle over to the kerb. He reached over, grabbed the

BOYES v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2818 [18 October 2021]

victim by the throat with one hand while punching her three or four times in the side of the head with the other hand. The victim suffered bruising to her face and head, including having an imprint on the side of her head from the sunglasses that she had been wearing.

[3] On 7 October 2020 Mr Boyes and the victim were at a shearing event in Waikouaiti. Mr Boyes was not drinking as he was a participant in the competition. The victim however was heavily intoxicated. At about 11 pm they decided to leave, and the victim got into the back of the van. Mr Boyes got into the front seat of the van, opened the rear sliding door and pulled the victim forcibly from the van, slamming her on the ground. He then kicked her heavily in the rib area about three times. She suffered bruising on her side that was visible for some time.

[4] Two weeks later in the evening of 21 October 2020 Mr Boyes and the victim argued. Mr Boyes grabbed her by the hair and threw her around in a motion that is described as rag-dolling. When she fell to the floor Mr Boyes kneed her three to four times in the ribs. She suffered bruising to her ribs and a bald patch on her scalp where her hair was pulled out.

[5] Nearly two months later, on 16 December 2020, Mr Boyes grabbed the victim by the legs, wrapped his arms around them and applied maximum pressure. The summary of facts notes that he was attempting to break her legs. She walked with a pronounced limp for several days afterwards.

[6] Then on 24 December 2020 there was a Christmas function hosted at Mr Boyes’ address with friends and children. Mr Boyes kicked a box of beer and threw the remaining unbroken bottles…

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 Boyes v Police

Details

AGLC: Boyes v Police [2021] NZHC 2818
Case: [2021] NZHC 2818
Decision Date: 18 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Jordan Boyes, challenged a sentence of two years and seven months’ imprisonment imposed by the District Court at Dunedin. Boyes had pleaded guilty to multiple charges of domestic violence, including assault, strangulation, and wilful damage. He appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court had to determine whether the sentence was appropriate and whether the appellant was entitled to a greater discount for mitigating factors. Boyes argued that the psychological report justified a 20 per cent discount for his mental health issues and background, which would have resulted in a total discount of 50 per cent and a sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment. The Crown opposed the appeal, arguing that the discount was appropriate and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The High Court found that the starting point of 52 months’ imprisonment was appropriate. The court considered the totality of the offending, noting that the charge of strangulation was the lead offence. The court also reviewed the psychological report, which detailed Boyes’ background, family history, and mental health issues, including a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from childhood sexual abuse. While the court agreed that Boyes’ background and mental health issues contributed to his offending, it found that a 15 per cent discount for these factors was appropriate. The court also considered other mitigating factors, such as Boyes’ good character and guilty pleas, resulting in an overall discount of 45 per cent. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders