Hall v R - [2021] NZCA 314

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA622/2020
[2021] NZCA 314

BETWEEN	KERRY RICHARD HALL Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	16 June 2021
Court:	Clifford, Thomas and Muir JJ
Counsel:	D J Matthews for Appellant C Ure for Respondent
Judgment:	12 July 2021 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed.

B The sentence of two years and seven months’ imprisonment is quashed.
CA sentence of two years and one month’s imprisonment is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Muir J)

Introduction

This is a second appeal from a sentence of two years and seven months’ imprisonment imposed for arson.[1] On 22 April 2021, this Court granted leave for the appeal to be heard.[2] It did so on the basis that:[3]
A miscarriage of justice may arise if the sentence was manifestly excessive because of the starting point adopted and the extent of the discount allowed for Mr Hall’s mental health issues.

Background

[1]R v Hall [2020] NZDC 15535 [District Court decision].

[2]Hall v R [2021] NZCA 125 [Leave decision].

[3]At [18].

Mr Hall was the sole tenant of one of 20 single-level social housing units in a Christchurch complex. On the afternoon of 24 March 2020, while he was in the unit alone, he used a lighter to set fire to his bedding materials. The fire took hold and caused substantial damage to the dwelling. The repairs cost $38,000.
Mr Hall’s neighbours noticed the fire and called Fire and Emergency New Zealand. One neighbour controlled the spread with a garden hose until the emergency services arrived. The statement of facts to which Mr Hall pleaded guilty noted his behaviour to emergency service staff as “agitated” and “aggressive”. He was subsequently restrained by a member of the public.
By way of explanation, the statement of facts records that Mr Hall “admitted lighting the fire and stated that he was angry and frustrated with living at the flat complex”.
Mr Hall was subsequently assessed under s 38(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPA) to determine his fitness to stand trial and/or whether he was insane pursuant to s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961. Reports were provided by Dr James Foulds and Mr John Carrell. Both concluded that Mr Hall was fit to stand trial and was not insane at the time of the offending.
The reports also recorded Mr Hall’s advice to health professionals that, at the time he lit the fire, he was experiencing delusions of a persecutory religious nature, believing that he was spiritually cursed. He also stated that he thought spirits inhabited some of the other tenants in the complex and that he decided “something had to be done”. He said that he believed fire “would make the spiritual activity stop”.
This account is consistent with the observations of a witness who reported that Mr Hall appeared disturbed earlier in the day, “screaming and saying things…

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 Hall v R

Details

AGLC: Hall v R [2021] NZCA 314
Case: [2021] NZCA 314
Decision Date: 12 July 2021 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Hall v R before the New Zealand Court of Appeal involved the appellant, Kerry Richard Hall, contesting the sentence of two years and seven months’ imprisonment imposed for arson. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to two years and one month’s imprisonment. The primary legal issues were whether the starting point and the extent of the discount allowed for Mr Hall’s mental health issues were appropriate. The court concluded that the starting point of four years and six months was too high and that a starting point of three years and eight months was appropriate. Additionally, the court found that the mental health discount applied by the District Court was appropriate and did not require further adjustment. The court substituted the original sentence with a sentence of two years and one month’s imprisonment.

Orders