Garrett-Phillips v The Queen - [2015] NZCA 563

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA270/2015
[2015] NZCA 563

BETWEEN	CHAZ PAKI GARRETT-PHILLIPS Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	2 November 2015
Court:	Randerson, Lang and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	J D Munro for Appellant J Murdoch for Respondent
Judgment:	20 November 2015 at 9:30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Clifford J)

Introduction

The appellant, Chaz Garrett-Phillips, pleaded guilty after a sentencing indication to one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and three charges of injuring with reckless disregard. In accordance with his indication, Judge Roberts sentenced Mr Garrett-Phillips to six years and nine months’ imprisonment.[1] Mr Garrett-Phillips now appeals on the basis that his sentence is manifestly excessive. He says that the starting point identified by the Judge was too high, because the Judge mistakenly regarded premeditation as an aggravating factor of the offending. Further, the Judge gave insufficient credit for genuine remorse and other personal circumstances.
[1]R v Garrett-Phillips [2015] NZDC 8377.
The Judge imposed a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 50 per cent, which Mr Garrett-Phillips appeals as being unwarranted.

Facts

The summary of facts to which Mr Garrett-Phillips pleaded guilty records that on Saturday 15 November 2014, Mr Garrett-Phillips and his de facto partner, Ms Sylvia Fletcher, were drinking at a local tavern. Mr Garrett-Phillips took offence at a comment about his dancing made by a woman, a Mrs Stacy Foley. He became angry and verbally abused Mrs Foley. Ms Fletcher then became involved, and struck Mrs Foley. Mrs Foley’s husband, Simon Foley, intervened, and asked what was going on. Mr Garrett-Phillips swore at Mrs Foley, and Mr Foley told Mr Garrett‑Phillips not to talk to his wife like that.
Mr Garrett-Phillips, who by now had a knife in his hand, struck Mr Foley on the left side of the neck in what was described as a roundhouse haymaker motion. As a result, Mr Foley received a large slicing wound under his left ear and down his neck. A scuffle ensued. Mr Garrett-Phillips struck Mr Foley two more times causing further wounds to the upper left side of his body. Mr Foley, realising he had been stabbed, moved away.
Others had joined in the scuffle in an attempt to stop Mr Garrett-Phillips. He continued to struggle with them, during which he cut Mrs Foley and two other members of the group — Roxanne Robins and Benjamin Gibson — with the knife he was holding.
Mr Garrett-Phillips was tackled to the ground and the knife taken off him. Mr Garrett-Phillips initially denied possessing the knife. He later admitted to having used it. He said he did so because he was scared and had to defend himself.
Mr Garrett-Phillips’ victims, in particular Mr Foley, suffered serious injuries. Mr Foley collapsed on the floor of the tavern, bleeding heavily. Mr Foley was rushed by ambulance to Taranaki Base Hospital where he underwent what he describes as life-saving surgery.…

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 Garrett-Phillips v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Garrett-Phillips v The Queen [2015] NZCA 563
Case: [2015] NZCA 563
Decision Date: 20 November 2015 at 9:30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Garrett-Phillips v The Queen, the appellant, Chaz Garrett-Phillips, challenged the sentence imposed by Judge Roberts, asserting that it was manifestly excessive. Garrett-Phillips pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and three charges of injuring with reckless disregard. Judge Roberts sentenced Garrett-Phillips to six years and nine months' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) set at 50 per cent. Garrett-Phillips argued that the starting point for sentencing was too high because the judge incorrectly regarded premeditation as an aggravating factor and that the judge failed to give sufficient credit for genuine remorse and other personal circumstances.

The court was required to decide whether the starting point of eight years' imprisonment was too high, whether adequate credit was given for remorse and other personal circumstances, and whether the imposition of a 50 per cent MPI was appropriate. The court considered the facts of the case, which involved a violent altercation in a tavern where Garrett-Phillips used a knife to attack multiple victims, resulting in serious injuries. The court found that the use of a weapon, the attack to the head, premeditation, and the seriousness of the injuries were all relevant aggravating factors. The court also examined the evidence regarding Garrett-Phillips' remorse and personal circumstances, including letters from family and friends attesting to his character and a psychologist's report assessing his risk of violent reoffending.

The court determined that the starting point of eight years' imprisonment was within the appropriate range for the seriousness of the offending. Although the court acknowledged that the premeditation was not as significant as the judge had concluded, it found that there was a degree of premeditation present. The court also concluded that the judge had appropriately considered the remorse shown by Garrett-Phillips through his early guilty plea and that no further discount was warranted. Finally, the court found that the imposition of a 50 per cent MPI was justified by the seriousness of the offending, the number of victims, and the injuries they suffered.

In summary, the Court of Appeal dismissed Garrett-Phillips' appeal against his sentence, affirming that the sentence imposed by Judge Roberts was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

Orders