Broughton v Police - [2024] NZHC 469

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2023-463-000125

[2024] NZHC 469

K’DHYNN-JAYSE SHAYLE BROUGHTON

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 26 February 2024

Appearances:

A Bean for the Appellant

H Speight for the Respondent

Judgment:

6 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 March 2024 at 3 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

A Bean, Bean Law, Hamilton
H Speight, Pollett Legal Ltd, Crown Solicitor Tauranga

BROUGHTON v POLICE [2024] NZHC 469 [6 March 2024]

[1] The appellant, K’Dhynn-Jayse Shayle Broughton, appeals the sentence imposed on him by Judge P G Mabey KC of two years and four months’ imprisonment in relation to the following charges:1

(a)Aggravated wounding.2

(b)Injuring with intent to injure.3

[2] Mr Broughton argues that the Judge erred by adopting a starting point of eight years on the lead charge. He argues that the appropriate starting point was five years and the appropriate end sentence ought to be 18 months’ imprisonment.

[3] The starting point is the sole issue in this appeal but it encapsulates several sub-issues. There is no challenge to the uplift of six months for the charge of injuring with intent to injure or with the discounts applied by the Judge, which were generous.

[4] The Crown opposes the appeal and submits that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive.

[5] The notice of appeal was filed approximately three weeks late. The Crown does not take issue with the delay. That delay has been adequately explained. Accordingly, I grant leave for the appeal.

The offending

[6] Mr Broughton’s offending took place on 14 March 2022 (aggravated wounding) and 30 November 2022 (injuring with intent to injury). The charges were originally dealt with in the Youth Court as part of a suite of charges. The charges which are the subject of this appeal were transferred to the District Court following a guilty plea.

1      R v Broughton [2023] NZDC 19218.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 191(1). Maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2). Maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.

[7] The summary of offending for the lead offending is set out in the Judge’s sentencing notes as follows:

[4] The first charge has a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years. The second a maximum term of imprisonment of five years.

[5] The facts relating to the charge of aggravated wounding require consideration. You and your friend were in the Manawatu area and over a period of not much more than 24 hours you unlawfully took motor vehicles, you damaged motor vehicles, you stole property including petrol and when you go to the Whakatāne area the police were alert to your crime spree and attempts were made to apprehend you.

[6]By that time you had committed multiple offences.

[7] Over a number of hours there were attempts by police officers to stop you. You were pursued and would not stop. There were attempts to spike…

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 Broughton v Police

Details

AGLC: Broughton v Police [2024] NZHC 469
Case: [2024] NZHC 469
Decision Date: 6 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered an appeal by K'Dhynn-Jayse Shayle Broughton against his sentence for aggravated wounding and injuring with intent to injure. The appellant argued that the starting point for the sentence on the lead charge should have been five years instead of eight, and that the appropriate end sentence should have been 18 months' imprisonment. The Court was required to determine if the sentencing judge erred in applying the guideline judgment of R v Taueki to the aggravated wounding charge and whether the starting point and the overall sentence were appropriate.

The Court held that while the guideline judgment of Taueki was primarily directed at sentencing under s 188 of the Crimes Act 1961, it could be applied by analogy to s 191(1) offences with appropriate adaptation. The Court found that the Judge was entitled to view the car as a lethal weapon and the injuries suffered as lasting, justifying the placement of the offending at the upper end of band two. The deliberate act of driving at the officer could have been considered premeditated, but the judge effectively put that aside. The Court concluded that even though the starting point of eight years might be regarded as severe, it was within the range and the end sentence, after substantial discounts, was not excessive. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders were that the appeal be dismissed and the original sentence be upheld.

Orders