Hall v R

Case [2020] NZHC 2552 29 September 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2020-409-114

[2020] NZHC 2552

BETWEEN
KERRY RICHARD HALL

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 17 September 2020

Appearances:

D J Matthews for Appellant S J Mallett for Respondent

Judgment:

29 September 2020

[REDACTED] JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 September 2020 at 3.30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

This judgment contains redaction of personal or sensitive information.

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Kerry Hall, was sentenced to two years and seven months’ imprisonment on a charge of arson.1 He appeals that sentence on the basis that the starting point, and therefore the end sentence, was manifestly excessive.

1 R v Hall [2020] NZDC 15535.

HALL v R [2020] NZHC 2552 [29 September 2020]

Facts

[2] Mr Hall is the sole tenant of one of 20 units at the Dover Courts social housing complex in Christchurch. On the afternoon of 24 March 2020, he was in his unit alone. At around 3.30 pm Mr Hall used a lighter to set fire to bedding materials on top of his bed. The fire took hold on the bed and spread into the living room.

[3] Mr Hall’s neighbours noticed the fire and called the Fire Service. One neighbour controlled the spread of the fire using a garden hose until the arrival of the Fire Service. When the Fire Service arrived, Mr Hall was agitated and aggressive towards staff. He was subsequently restrained by a member of the public until police arrived to arrest him. Mr Hall told police that he had started the fire because he was angry and frustrated with living at the flat complex.

[4] As a result of the fire, the unit’s living room and bedroom were severely damaged. The fire caused approximately $38,000 in damage.

[5] There was evidence that Mr Hall was suffering from mental health issues at the time of the incident. Occupants of the other units described him as behaving erratically, talking to himself and shouting about evil spirits. Two mental health reports were prepared pursuant to s 38 Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, one of which recorded:

[redacted]

[6] Judge Gilbert determined that Mr Hall was mentally impaired at the time of the offending but was fit to plead.2 Mr Hall then pleaded guilty.

District Court decision

[7] In sentencing Mr Hall, Judge O’Driscoll noted that he was 45 years old with an extensive criminal history. He had only one recent conviction (after 2016). His Honour considered the major factor of the offending was Mr Hall’s unstable mental health. He took that factor into account when considering Mr Hall’s motive. He found

2 Police v Hall [2020] NZDC 10470.

that, while the offending was clearly deliberate, there was “probably not too much premeditation involved”.3 The Judge also took into account the “real and significant risk” of danger to the public and the extent of the loss and damage.4

[8] Judge O’Driscoll referred…

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 [2020] NZHC 2552
Case: [2020] NZHC 2552
Decision Date: 29 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant, Kerry Hall, against the sentence he received for arson. Hall argued that the starting point, and therefore the end sentence, was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by Osborne J in the High Court of New Zealand. The central issue for the court was whether the sentence imposed on Hall was manifestly excessive and not justified by accepted sentencing principles.

The court found that while the starting point was at the upper end of the range available to the Judge, it was within range. The court acknowledged the degree of property damage and the danger posed by the offending, as well as Hall's mental health issues. The court held that Hall's mental health was a significant contributing factor, but not so much as to absolve him of culpability. The court concluded that the end sentence of two years and seven months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders