Geros v The the Queen - [2022] NZHC 2269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-404-245

[2022] NZHC 2269

BETWEEN
CAMERON GEROS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 5 September 2022

Appearances:

Q Duff (on behalf of D Dufty) for Appellant H Brown for Respondent

Judgment:

7 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 September 2022 at 10.15 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

GEROS v R [2022] NZHC 2269 [7 September 2022]

[1] Mr Geros pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with reckless disregard for the safety of a victim.1 On 4 July 2022, Judge A-M Skellern sentenced him to 19 months imprisonment.2

[2] Mr Geros appeals against sentence on the basis that a sentence of home detention ought to have been imposed. Mr Geros is currently unable to provide a suitable address at which to serve such a sentence. However, he seeks leave to apply for the sentence to be converted to one of home detention should he and his partner be able to find a suitable address in coming months. Mr Geros’ partner remains supportive of him even though his EM bail was revoked on 23 May 2022 following an incident in which Mr Geros allegedly offered violence or threats of violence towards her.

The offending

[3] Mr Geros pleaded guilty on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. This records that on 2 December 2020 the male victim was sitting outside the motel room where he was living in emergency housing. He was talking on his cellphone. Mr Geros approached the victim and then went into his room, where he sat down on a couch. The victim followed Mr Geros into the unit and Mr Geros accused him of having caused him trouble when they first met.

[4] Mr Geros walked over to the victim and pushed him in the chest with both hands. The victim responded by pushing him back. At this point Mr Geros pulled out a knife he had been carrying in his pocket. Upon seeing the knife, the victim punched Mr Geros in the face and pushed him away. This caused Mr Geros to stumble back and the victim ran from the room. Mr Geros then left the unit and drove away.

[5] At some stage during this struggle Mr Geros had pushed the sharp end of the knife into the victim’s stomach. This caused a two to three-centimetre-long wound to his stomach that required stitches.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2).
2 R v Geros [2022] NZDC 12437.

The sentence

[6] Mr Geros was originally charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.3 The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years imprisonment. The Crown subsequently amended the charge to one of wounding with reckless disregard for the victim’s safety. Mr Geros sought a sentence indication on that charge and this was given by the Judge Skellern on 15 March 2022.

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 Geros v The the Queen

Details

AGLC: Geros v The the Queen [2022] NZHC 2269
Case: [2022] NZHC 2269
Decision Date: 7 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr. Cameron Geros appeals against the sentence imposed by Judge A-M Skellern, who sentenced him to 19 months imprisonment for wounding with reckless disregard for the safety of a victim. Mr. Geros argues that a sentence of home detention should have been imposed instead. The appeal hinges on whether the sentencing judge erred in principle by not considering the least restrictive outcome or by focusing excessively on the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and the protection of the community.

The court considered whether the sentence of imprisonment was appropriate given the nature of the offending and Mr. Geros’ extensive criminal history. The offending involved the use of a knife and occurred in the victim’s place of residence, potentially escalating to a more serious crime. The Judge had already considered the principle of imposing the least restrictive outcome but concluded that the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and the protection of the community were paramount given the circumstances. The Judge also took into account Mr. Geros’ previous convictions for similar violent offences, which included significant periods of imprisonment.

The appeal court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in principle. The decision to impose a sentence of imprisonment was justified by the need to hold Mr. Geros accountable for his actions, to promote a sense of responsibility, and to denounce and deter him and others from similar offending. The court noted that the Judge had appropriately balanced the various sentencing principles and concluded that the sentence of imprisonment was neither plainly wrong nor an error of principle. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence is dismissed.

Orders