Mr Graham was found guilty following a trial in the District Court at New Plymouth on a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. On 1 October 2010 Judge Roberts sentenced him to five years imprisonment.[1]
[1] R v Graham DC New Plymouth CRI-2009-043-4207, 1 October 2010.
Originally Mr Graham appealed against both conviction and sentence. Prior to the hearing, he abandoned his appeal against conviction. He maintained his appeal against sentence on the grounds that it was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive.

Facts

On the evening of 28 October 2009 Mr Graham was drinking at his sister’s house in New Plymouth. The victim of his offending was a person who called at the address to visit a friend. He began drinking with Mr Graham after he discovered that his friend was not at home.
Mr Graham and the victim decided to drink outside so that they would not disturb other persons in the house who were sleeping. A short time later, the victim went back inside the house to collect his property prior to leaving the address. When he returned outside to say goodbye to Mr Graham, he found that Mr Graham had gone back into the kitchen. When Mr Graham came out, the victim noticed that he was talking to himself and acting strangely.
Mr Graham approached the victim and said “come here mate”. The victim thought that Mr Graham wanted to hongi. Mr Graham then grabbed the victim by the back of the head with his left hand, and put a serrated steak knife to his throat. He then swept the knife across the victim’s throat, causing a shallow wound approximately 120 millimetres long. The victim lifted up his right hand to protect himself, and thereby sustained a significant wound to his right thumb. This wound immediately began bleeding profusely.
The victim then fled the scene on foot. Mr Graham chased him for a short distance before the victim made it to the safety of a petrol station, from where an ambulance and the police were called. The victim declined to have medical treatment for his wounds, but in the early hours of 29 October he made a written statement to the police in which he described how he had come to receive his injuries.
The victim was a reluctant witness at trial. He maintained that he had been intoxicated on the evening in question, and could not remember anything about the incident that gave rise to the charge. The Crown obtained an order declaring him hostile, and it then relied upon the…

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 Graham v R

Details

AGLC: Graham v R [2011] NZCA 131
Case: [2011] NZCA 131
Decision Date: 4 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ronald Joel Graham v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, an offence that occurred on 28 October 2009. The appellant was sentenced to five years imprisonment by Judge Roberts in the District Court at New Plymouth on 1 October 2010. The appellant appealed against both his conviction and sentence; however, prior to the hearing, the appellant abandoned his appeal against conviction and maintained his appeal against the sentence, arguing it was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand, consisting of Glazebrook J, Simon France and Lang JJ, dismissed the appeal against sentence. The facts of the case reveal that on the evening of the offending, the appellant and the victim were drinking at the appellant's sister's house in New Plymouth. The victim, who had come to visit a friend, began drinking with the appellant after discovering that his friend was not home. The two men then decided to drink outside, not to disturb other people in the house who were sleeping. When the victim went back inside the house to collect his belongings, the appellant followed him and grabbed him by the back of the head, holding a serrated steak knife to his throat. The appellant then swept the knife across the victim's throat, causing a shallow wound approximately 120 millimetres long. The victim sustained a significant wound to his right thumb when he attempted to protect himself. The victim declined to have medical treatment for his wounds but later provided a written statement to the police describing how he had come to receive his injuries. The appellant's grounds of appeal focused on the Judge's conclusion that the offending involved extreme violence, premeditation, serious injury, and an attack on a vulnerable victim. The Court of Appeal held that the appropriate approach is to evaluate the seriousness of the offending using the factors and examples listed in Taueki as a guide. In this case, the offending easily fell towards the top of Band 1 or the lower end of Band 2 in Taueki, and thus, a starting point of five years imprisonment was not outside the available range. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders