Legal Research
Cases
Clover v The King

Clover v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 919 24 April 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2024-419-14

[2024] NZHC 919

BETWEEN
JASON TEOINGA CLOVER

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 16 April 2024

Appearances:

K Whyte for Appellant S Hartstone for Crown

Judgment:

24 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

[As to appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 April 2024 at 3pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar
……………………………………

Solicitors/Counsel:
Thackery Chambers, Hamilton Hamilton Legal, Hamilton

CLOVER v R [2024] NZHC 919 [24 April 2024]

This appeal

[1] Mr Jason Clover was sentenced to five years and three months’ imprisonment by Judge RG Marshall on 7 February 2024 at the Hamilton District Court.1

[2] The sentence was for two tranches of offending. Mr Clover was found guilty of the lead charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm,2 following a Judge-alone trial on 1 November 2023.3 Separately, Mr Clover pleaded guilty to charges of possession of an offensive weapon,4 and unlawful assembly,5 relating to a different incident.

[3] Mr Clover appeals his sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive because the six-year starting point adopted by the Judge for the lead charge was too high and insufficient credit was given for factors in his cultural report and the impact of imprisonment on his daughter.

[4] The Crown’s position is that the end sentence cannot be said to be manifestly excessive, and the appeal should be dismissed.

Summary of offending

[5] The lead offence occurred at a Hamilton motel in which Mr Clover had been living in with his partner and their child. Also staying at the motel, in separate units, were Daniel McGaffin, Mr Clover’s acquaintance and co-offender, and the victim.

[6] The victim was aged 74 years at the time and was physically frail. He sometimes required the assistance of a walking frame and had a mobility scooter in his unit. Mr McGaffin would assist the victim from time to time and the Judge records that there was a form of friendship that developed between the two, at least as far as the victim was concerned.

1      R v Clover [2024] NZDC 2344 [Sentencing judgment].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1). Maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      R v Clover [2023] NZDC 24142 [Conviction judgment].
4      Crimes Act, s 202A. Maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act, s 86. Maximum penalty of one years’ imprisonment.

[7] On the afternoon of 13 January 2023, Mr McGaffin came into the victim’s unit, uninvited. Although the victim’s memory of the events is impaired because of his age and the trauma he subsequently experienced, the victim recalled that Mr McGaffin was rummaging around papers on the kitchen table looking “for accounts”. The victim told Mr McGaffin to leave. Mr McGaffin did not leave, and instead let Mr Clover into the unit, who was armed with a steel bar at least 10–12 inches long.

[8] When Mr Clover entered the unit, the victim was sitting…

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 Clover v The King

Details

AGLC: Clover v The King [2024] NZHC 919
Case: [2024] NZHC 919
Decision Date: 24 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clover v The King [2024] NZHC 919 involved an appeal by Mr. Jason Clover against his sentence of five years and three months’ imprisonment for two tranches of criminal offending, which included wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, possession of an offensive weapon, and unlawful assembly. The sentencing appeal was heard by Becroft J. The primary legal issues were whether the six-year starting point for the lead charge was appropriate, if sufficient credit was given for factors in the cultural report, and whether consideration should have been given to the impact of imprisonment on Mr. Clover’s daughter.

Regarding the six-year starting point, Becroft J found that it was appropriate given the cumulative effect of the aggravating factors, which included the vulnerability of the victim, home invasion, vigilante action, use of a weapon, multiple attackers, premeditation, extent of violence, and serious injury. The judge noted that the six-year starting point was consistent with previous cases and that there was no demonstrated error in the sentencing judge’s approach.

As for the cultural report, Becroft J determined that the 15 per cent reduction was appropriate and not in error, as it aligned with the submissions made by Mr. Clover’s previous counsel during the sentencing hearing.

Becroft J also considered the impact of imprisonment on Mr. Clover’s daughter, a matter not raised at the sentencing hearing. Although the judge noted that the issue could have been raised at sentencing, the additional information provided through an affidavit from Mr. Clover’s mother demonstrated a strong bond between father and daughter and justified a separate allowance. In light of this, the judge proposed a further reduction of three months, leading to an end sentence of five years’ imprisonment.

Ultimately, the original sentence was quashed and replaced with a sentence of five years’ imprisonment, reflecting the additional mitigating factor concerning the impact on Mr. Clover’s daughter.

Orders