Coombs v Crown Law - [2015] NZHC 584

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2015-409-000006 [2015] NZHC 584

RAYMOND GARY COOMBS

v

CROWN LAW

Hearing: 26 March 2015

Appearances:

J Lucas for Appellant
K B Bell for Crown

Judgment:

26 March 2015

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Raymond Gary Coombs appeals against a sentence of four years and three months imprisonment imposed in respect of four charges as follows:

(a) a charge of male assaults female – eight months’ imprisonment to be

served concurrently;1

(b) a charge of assault with intent to injure – two years’ imprisonment to

be served cumulatively on the attempting to pervert charge;2

(c) a charge of breaching a protection order – nine months’ imprisonment

to be served concurrently;3 and

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 194.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 193.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 49.

COOMBS v CROWN LAW [2015] NZHC 584 [26 March 2015]

(d)a representative charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice – two years and three months imprisonment cumulative on the assault with intent to injure charge.4

[2] Mr Coombs now appeals against that sentence on the basis that the sentencing Judge erred by imposing a manifestly excessive sentence.

Background

[3] The charges relate to events which took place over several months from May to July in 2014. Mr Coombs was in a relationship with the victim. On 2 May 2014, the two were at his home address when an argument developed, resulting in him pushing the victim in the chest and slapping her. On leaving the address, Mr Coombs pursued and continued to physically harass the victim. He grabbed the victim and threw her to the ground. The victim attempted to run away but was caught by Mr Coombs who punched her in the side of her face and threw her into a parked car. This offending gives rise to the male assaults female charge.

[4] A protection order was subsequently granted, however, the relationship continued.

[5] On 9 May 2014, Mr Coombs and the victim had a further argument. Mr Coombs struck her in the face causing her to fall to the ground. He then squeezed her throat and continued to punch her in the face. After briefly stopping and crying, Mr Coombs kicked the, victim in the kidneys five times. When the victim tried to leave he slammed her fingers in a window before finally letting her go.

[6] The victim sustained a swollen and bruised right eye, swollen lips with cuts or bruises on the inside of her lips, a small bruise on her left ear, bruising to the left side of her neck, and a graze to her palm. She had difficulty moving her jaw and suffered pain in her lower back. This offending gave rise to the assault with intent to
injure and breach of protection order charges.

4 Crimes Act 1961, s 117.

[7] On 4 July 2014, Mr Coombs was arrested and remanded in custody. Between

9 and 18 July, he called his father…

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 Coombs v Crown Law

Details

AGLC: Coombs v Crown Law [2015] NZHC 584
Case: [2015] NZHC 584
Decision Date: 26 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Raymond Gary Coombs appealed against the sentence of four years and three months' imprisonment imposed on him for four separate charges, which included male assaults female, assault with intent to injure, breach of a protection order, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The appeal was heard by the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should have been within the range of three years and five months to three years and eight months' imprisonment. The Crown submitted that the sentence was justified given the sustained campaign by the appellant to have the victim change her evidence, the vulnerability of the victim, and the appellant's significant history of criminality.

The court considered the appellant's submissions and the Court of Appeal decision in M v R, which suggested that a starting point of three years' imprisonment for serious cases may not reflect current sentencing practices. The court found that the starting point of two years and six months for the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice was within the range of what the judge could have imposed, and the six-month uplift for the appellant's prior relating offending was also within range. The court found that the judge had appropriately accounted for the totality of the offending and the appellant's asserted remorse, and was in the best position to assess the genuineness of it. The appeal was dismissed.

The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and did not warrant any further discount. The court found that the appellant's attempt to pervert the course of justice, along with the other charges, warranted a moderate term of imprisonment. The court also considered the seriousness of the charges and the vulnerability of the victim, and found that the sentence imposed was appropriate. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the original sentence be upheld.

Orders