Cornor v The King

Case [2023] NZHC 2752


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2023-483-12

[2023] NZHC 2752

BETWEEN

JORDAN THOMAS CORNOR

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 19 September 2023 (via VMR)

Appearances:

J H Waugh for Applicant

T C Didsbury and P D Marshall for Respondent

Judgment:

29 September 2023


JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J


[1]                 On 21 July 2023, Mr Jordan Cornor was sentenced by Judge Krebs in the Whanganui District Court on a single charge of wounding with reckless disregard,1 to 27 months’ imprisonment.2

[2]                 Mr Cornor appeals that sentence, alleging that the starting point adopted by the Judge was excessive, and that an excessive uplift for previous convictions was imposed. He says that the Judge erred, and that a different sentence should be imposed. Mr Cornor does not challenge the 20 per cent discount for a guilty plea nor the 10 per cent discount awarded for personal background factors.

[3]                 Mr Cornor’s appeal is opposed by the Crown, which says that the Judge did not err and that the final sentence was within range.


1      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

2      R v Cornor [2023] NZDC 15327.

CORNOR v R [2023] NZHC 2752 [29 September 2023]

[4]For the reasons below, I consider that Mr Cornor’s appeal should be dismissed.

Background

The offending

[5]                 On 30 March 2022, at around 11:00 pm, Mr Cornor and at least one other person were near the complainant’s address in Whanganui, making a great deal of noise. The complainant, from his address, told Mr Cornor and his associates to be quiet and to leave. This angered Mr Cornor and his associate(s) who moved towards the complainant’s property. An argument began, which turned into a fight outside the address. The complainant and his mother managed to retreat inside their address and lock the door.

[6]                 Mr Cornor and his associate(s) pursued them, smashing panes of glass in the door, and reaching through to unlock it. Mr Cornor then went to the complainant and delivered a significant blow to his face, knocking the complainant over onto sharp shards of glass upon the floor. The complainant suffered large wounds in his right leg, as well as injuries to other parts of his body, including many other smaller wounds on his legs. The injuries that he suffered were a consequence of him falling onto the broken glass. The complainant’s mother called the Police.

Procedural background

[7]                 Mr Cornor was originally charged with wounding with reckless disregard, aggravated burglary, and wounding with intent to injure. However, the second and third of those charges were withdrawn by the Crown as a result of Mr Cornor pleading guilty to the charge of wounding with reckless disregard following a sentencing indication. That sentencing indication was given on 24 April 2023, and involved an indication of two years and seven months’ imprisonment, calculated as:3

(a)a starting point of two years, nine months’ imprisonment;

(b)an uplift of six months for previous convictions; and

Continue reading Cornor v The King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cornor v The King [2023] NZHC 2752
Case
[2023] NZHC 2752
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cornor appealed his 27-month imprisonment sentence for wounding with reckless disregard, arguing that the District Court Judge erred in adopting an excessive starting point and an excessive uplift for previous convictions. The Crown opposed the appeal, arguing that the sentence was within range. The High Court found that the starting point was appropriate, given the serious aggravating factors of the home invasion, the attack on the head, the presence of multiple attackers, and the serious injuries caused. The Court also found that the six-month uplift for previous convictions was appropriate, as Mr Cornor's criminal history showed a concerning pattern of violence. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed by the District Court Judge was within range and dismissed the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.