Cameron v The King - [2024] NZHC 3843

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-642

[2024] NZHC 3843

BETWEEN
GAVIN BARRY STUART CAMERON

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 10 December 2024

Appearances:

S Shanahan and A Bloem for Appellant D Karl for Respondent

Judgment:

10 December 2024

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

Solicitors:
Bloem Law, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Auckland

CAMERON v R [2024] NZHC 3843 [10 December 2024]

Introduction

[1] Gavin Cameron was sentenced to four years and three month’s imprisonment on 14 October 2024 in the District Court at Auckland.1 He appeals the sentence on the grounds that the Judge erred by granting insufficient credit for remorse and rehabilitation and says that as a result the sentence is manifestly excessive.

Background

[2] At about 12 pm on Monday 2 January 2023, Mr Cameron, together with two co-defendants, Mr Westley and Ms Falwasser, went to the address of the victim, Mr Larkins. The summary of facts records that they had formed a common intention to locate Mr Larkins and kidnap him. When Mr Larkins came to the front door, Mr Westley lifted his shirt to show Mr Larkins an air pistol. Mr Westley told Mr Larkins to come with him and he would not be hurt. Mr Larkins ran from the address on foot and tried to hide in the driveway of a neighbouring address where he was calling out for help. Mr Cameron and his co-defendants chased Mr Larkins in their vehicle and caught up to him. The summary of facts records that Mr Cameron got out of the vehicle and approached Mr Larkins pointing a pipe (which was half of a pipe gun) at him telling him to get in the car. The pipe was made of metal and was approximately 60 cm long and formed the basis of the charge of possession of an offensive weapon.

[3] Mr Cameron and his male co-defendant then forced Mr Larkins to get in the back seat of the car. Mr Cameron got into the front passenger seat; Mr Westley got into the backseat next to Mr Larkins with Ms Falwasser driving. Mr Westley pulled out a short knife and pointed it at Mr Larkins, telling him to calm down or he would be stabbed. Mr Westley then punched Mr Larkins in the head multiple times. Mr Cameron struck Mr Larkins to the head numerous times with the pipe. This forms the basis of the charge of assault with a weapon.

[4] Mr Larkins attempted to escape the car but was unsuccessful. Mr Westley then put his arm around Mr Larkins’ neck from behind in a sleeper hold and applied

1 R v Cameron [2024] NZDC 27383.

pressure to his neck, causing Mr Larkins to be unable to breathe. Mr Larkins stopped resisting. He was unable to see clearly due to being unable to breathe.

[5] Mr Westley pulled out a pair of metal handcuffs and handcuffed Mr Larkins left hand to the handrail attached 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 Cameron v The King

Details

AGLC: Cameron v The King [2024] NZHC 3843
Case: [2024] NZHC 3843
Decision Date: 10 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Gavin Cameron, appeals his sentence of four years and three months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Glubb on 14 October 2024 in the Auckland District Court. Cameron argues that the sentence is manifestly excessive because the Judge granted insufficient credit for remorse and rehabilitation. Cameron claims that a five per cent discount for remorse alone would have been appropriate, with an additional credit for rehabilitative efforts and prospects, resulting in a sentence of three years and nine months. The Crown contends that while Cameron’s efforts to rehabilitate in prison are genuine, the Judge could have imposed no credit for remorse because Cameron denied aspects of the summary of facts to which he pleaded guilty, attempting to mitigate the seriousness of his offending. The Crown also argues that the Judge’s discount for personal factors was appropriate.

The Court examined whether the Judge erred in the sentence imposed and whether a different sentence should be imposed. It was noted that sentencing is not a science and the Court will not intervene unless the sentence is outside the range available to the sentencing judge. The Court considered the seriousness of the offence, which involved planning, premeditation, and the use of weapons to assault a vulnerable victim. The Court found that the overall discount of 20 per cent for remorse, rehabilitation, personal factors, and a late guilty plea was within the available range. The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders