Legal Research
Cases
Doctor v The King

Doctor v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 1878 10 July 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000205

[2024] NZHC 1878

BETWEEN
TEXAS JUNIOR DOCTOR

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 17 June 2024

Appearances:

J Seton for the Appellant M Nash for the Crown

Judgment:

10 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 July 2024 at 3 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

M Nash, Meredith Connell, Auckland
J Seton, Barrister, Matai Chambers, Auckland

DOCTOR v R [2024] NZHC 1878 [10 July 2024]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Texas Junior Doctor, appeals the sentence imposed on him by Judge J Bergseng of four years and three months’ imprisonment in relation to the following offences:1

(a)one representative charge of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard;2 and

(b)intentional damage.3

[2] The notice of appeal advanced five grounds. Three were sensibly abandoned before the hearing. The appeal focused on two grounds, arguing that the Judge erred in the following two respects:

(a)giving insufficient weight to the cultural matters in the s 27 report by granting a discount of only five per cent; and

(b)declining to allow a discrete discount for remorse.

[3]The Crown opposes the appeal.

The offending

[4] Mr Doctor’s offending took place on 19 July 2022 (discharging a firearm with reckless disregard) and 12 August 2022 (intentional damage). Mr Doctor pleaded guilty to these charges.

[5] The summary of the offending is set out in the Judge’s sentencing notes which I adopt:

[4] The discharging of a firearm with reckless disregard from 19 July 2022 is the most serious of the charges for sentencing today. The background to this is that in July 2022 [Ms M] was residing at an address in… Glen Innes. In addition, there were her sons and three daughters there.

1      R v Doctor [2024] NZDC 8293.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 198(2). Maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 269(2)(a). Maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.

[5] Prior to 19 July there had been an ongoing disagreement between the Doctor family and [Ms M’s] son.

[6] On 19 July [Ms M’s]’s three daughters took her out for the evening. Around 11.45 pm they all arrived back at [their] address. [Ms M] got out of the vehicle. She waved goodbye to her daughters from inside the house in the laundry, looking out the laundry window as they reversed out of the driveway.

[7] As this was happening Texas Doctor and his son Wiremu together with others arrived at [the address]. They were in two vehicles. They got out the vehicles, two of them had shotguns. Texas Doctor shot at the house. Pellets went through the laundry window. That caused glass to fall into [Ms M’s] hair.

[8] As her daughters were reversing onto the road Texas Doctor then shot at their vehicle and another defendant yelled out: “That’s what happens when you fuck with family.”

[9] Those shots struck the vehicle. The two rear tyres were punctured by the shots.…

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 Doctor v The King

Details

AGLC: Doctor v The King [2024] NZHC 1878
Case: [2024] NZHC 1878
Decision Date: 10 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Doctor v The King, the appellant, Texas Junior Doctor, appealed against his sentence of four years and three months’ imprisonment for discharging a firearm with reckless disregard and intentional damage. The appeal was heard on 17 June 2024, with appearances made by J Seton for the appellant and M Nash for the Crown. The judgment was delivered by Walker J on 10 July 2024.

The appellant contested the sentence on two grounds. The first was that the Judge had erred by giving insufficient weight to the cultural matters in the s 27 report, granting only a five per cent discount. The second was that the Judge should have allowed a discrete discount for remorse. The Crown opposed the appeal, arguing that the sentence was appropriate.

The offending involved the appellant shooting at a house and damaging it, causing significant trauma to the victims. The Judge considered the seriousness of the offending, which included multiple firearms, potential victims, gang overtones, and high levels of recklessness. The Judge imposed a starting sentence of four years and six months, adjusted for the second charge and personal mitigation, resulting in a final sentence of four years and three months.

The appeal argued that the Judge should have applied a higher discount for the cultural factors and for remorse. The appellant cited reported family violence, instability, and substance use, along with grief over his grandfather's death. The Crown argued that the appellant's decision to join the Rebels gang was the proximate cause of the offending, and the evidence of remorse was inconsistent.

Walker J found that while the Judge’s approach to the cultural factors was appropriate, the court should have considered a discrete discount for remorse. The appellant’s expressions of remorse, including a letter to the court and statements to the PAC interviewer, demonstrated genuine remorse. Although the appellant remained in the gang, this was due to the need to protect his family. The court accepted that the appellant's remorse was genuine and warranted a five per cent discount, reducing the sentence by three months to four years.

The court allowed the appeal and substituted the sentence to four years, quashing the original sentence of four years and three months. This decision reflects the court's consideration of the cultural factors and the appellant's genuine remorse.

Orders