Cameron v Police - [2016] NZHC 2678

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-409-111 [2016] NZHC 2678

BETWEEN
BLAIR WESLEY CHARLES

CAMERON Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 8 November 2016

Appearances:

L Drummond for Appellant
E Henderson and K Basire for Respondent

Judgment:

8 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] The appellant, Blair Cameron, pleaded guilty to assault with intent to injure and male assaults female. He was sentenced by Judge Couch to six months home detention.1 He appeals against that sentence.

Background

The offending

[2] Mr Cameron separated from his wife in early 2016. On 3 April 2016, in the early hours of the morning, Mr Cameron went to the house where his ex-wife was residing. A male friend of his ex-wife was also at the address. Mr Cameron entered the house where the occupants were sleeping. He stood over the male victim and punched him repeatedly about the face and head causing cuts and bruising. The male victim tried to escape. Mr Cameron grabbed him in a chokehold and continued
choking him for some time threatening, “I can kill you”. Mr Cameron’s former wife

1 Police v Cameron [2016] NZDC 17265.

tried to intervene. She failed to pull Mr Cameron away. When the man said he would leave Mr Cameron released the chokehold but began to punch him about the head and face causing further cuts and bruises. This resulted in the charge of assault with intent to injure.

[3] The female victim ran to the neighbour’s property for help and tried to call the police. Mr Cameron followed her there. He grabbed her by her t-shirt and raised his fist, threatening to punch her. He then pushed her violently into a brick wall and grabbed a wooden stake. He struck her repeatedly about her legs with it. She suffered bruising to her legs and body in the assault. This resulted in the charge of male assaults female.

The sentencing

[4] Judge Couch regarded the offending as serious. He accurately described the attack on the male victim as sustained. The victim was vulnerable being asleep in bed at the time. Numerous blows to the head were delivered and Mr Cameron choked his victim. The female victim was also vulnerable, being outside at the time in her night-clothes trying to run away. For all the offending Judge Couch took a starting point of 18 months imprisonment. To reflect the serious aggravating factor that the attack involved Mr Cameron’s unlawful presence in a dwelling-house a two month uplift was applied. Judge Couch provided a seven month, or 35 per cent, discount to reflect the mitigating features of prompt guilty pleas, remorse and the offer of reparation. This reduced the end sentence to 13 months’ imprisonment.

[5] The Judge considered that home detention was appropriate in this case and sentenced Mr Cameron to six months’ home detention with a condition he participate in a program to address alcohol, anger management and other offending-related issues. He was also ordered to pay $1,000 reparation…

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 Cameron v Police

Details

AGLC: Cameron v Police [2016] NZHC 2678
Case: [2016] NZHC 2678
Decision Date: 8 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Cameron v Police, the appellant, Blair Wesley Charles Cameron, appealed against his sentence for assault with intent to injure and male assaults female. The offending occurred after Mr Cameron separated from his wife in early 2016. On 3 April 2016, Mr Cameron went to his ex-wife’s house where the male victim was sleeping. Mr Cameron stood over the male victim and punched him repeatedly about the face and head causing cuts and bruising. The male victim tried to escape, but Mr Cameron grabbed him in a chokehold and continued choking him for some time, threatening, “I can kill you.” The male victim suffered further cuts and bruises when Mr Cameron punched him about the head and face again. Mr Cameron then followed his ex-wife to a neighbour’s property where he assaulted her. The Court of Appeal considered the seriousness of the offending, the appropriate starting point, and the discount for mitigating factors.

The court considered the aggravating factors in determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing. These factors included multiple attacks to the face and head with a closed fist, premeditation, strangulation, vulnerability, threats to kill, the duration of the attack, and the home invasion element. The Crown submitted that the offending was comparable to top of band two offending under Nuku if not the lower end of band three, and that a starting point of 16 months’ imprisonment was appropriate for the assault with intent to injure charge. The court agreed that a starting point of 16 months was available. The court also considered an uplift for the further male assaults female charge, which featured many of the same aggravating factors. The court found that a four month uplift would have been within range.

The court considered the mitigating factors in determining the appropriate discount for sentencing. These factors included remorse and reparation. The court found that a 35 per cent discount was appropriate, reducing the sentence to 13 months. The court then adjusted the sentence to six months’ home detention, which was well within range and arguably at the lower end. The order to pay reparation for emotional harm in the sum of $1,000 to one of Mr Cameron’s victims was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders