Hall v R - [2015] NZCA 249

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA557/2014
[2015] NZCA 249

BETWEEN	JORDAN GREGORY HALL Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	11 June 2015
Court:	Wild, Venning and Williams JJ
Counsel:	J S Jefferson for Appellant M G Wilkinson for Respondent
Judgment:	16 June 2015 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Venning J)

Following a jury trial in the Gisborne District Court Jordan Hall was convicted on a charge of injuring with intent to injure. Mr Hall had previously pleaded guilty to a separate charge of assault with intent to injure and one of resisting police. Judge Adeane sentenced him to two years and three months’ imprisonment on the charge of injuring with intent to injure and 18 months’ concurrent on the assault with intent to injure charge.[1] The Judge convicted and discharged Mr Hall on the resisting police charge.
[1]R v Hall DC Napier CRI-2013-016-884, 5 September 2014.
Mr Hall appeals against sentence. He had also appealed against conviction but that has been abandoned.

Background

On the evening of 13 April 2013 Mr Hall and three associates — Mr Sheridan, Mr Andrew Dugdale and Mr Matthew Dugdale — were out and about in Gisborne. The Judge said they “knew very well what the order of business was for that night”.[2] During the course of the night they assaulted four people between them. The first incident involved a Mr Durrant. He was challenged by Mr Hall’s associates as they drove past him in their vehicle. Mr Durrant was then chased and assaulted. Mr Hall was charged with but acquitted of the assault on Mr Durrant.
[2]At [7].
After the incident involving the first victim, Mr Hall and his associates then returned to the Smash Palace bar in Bank Street. Mr Hall approached the second victim, Mr MacPherson, while he was talking on his cell phone. Mr Hall asked him if he wanted a “rumble”. Mr MacPherson declined. Mr Hall then walked around the table and punched Mr MacPherson in his face, knocking off his glasses. He then grabbed Mr MacPherson by his shirt, pulling his head down, and began punching him multiple times to his face. Mr Hall was urged on by two of his associates.
Mr Herbert, a bar security staff member, intervened. He grabbed Mr Hall in a headlock and marched him to the front of the bar and pushed him into the garden. While Mr Herbert was doing this, Mr Hall was still holding on to Mr MacPherson, who was dragged out to the front of the bar as well. While trying to evict Mr Hall, Mr Herbert was tackled to the ground by Mr Sheridan.
Mr Hall, Mr Sheridan and Mr Andrew Dugdale then began kicking Mr Herbert about the body and head while he was on the ground. Mr Herbert was knocked out cold and lay prone on the ground. While the attacked continued Ms Pink, who also works…

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 [2015] NZCA 249
Case: [2015] NZCA 249
Decision Date: 16 June 2015 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hall v R, the appellant, Jordan Gregory Hall, was convicted in the Gisborne District Court of injuring with intent to injure, assault with intent to injure, and resisting police. Hall was sentenced to two years and three months' imprisonment for injuring with intent to injure and 18 months' concurrent imprisonment for assault with intent to injure, with the resisting police charge being discharged. Hall appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal against conviction had been abandoned.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the starting point for the sentence was appropriate and whether sufficient credit was given for mitigating factors such as Hall's youth, remorse, and restrictive bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal found that the starting point of two years and six months' imprisonment was appropriate, given the totality of Hall's offending, including the unprovoked assault on Mr MacPherson and the subsequent more serious assault on Mr Herbert. The Court noted that the credit of 10% for youth and remorse was sufficient, and there was no need for further reduction for Hall's bail conditions. The Court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal against sentence.

The Court of Appeal's decision resulted in the dismissal of the appeal against sentence, with the original sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment for injuring with intent to injure and 18 months' concurrent imprisonment for assault with intent to injure being upheld.

Orders