Hall v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 3123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2021-483-000015

[2021] NZHC 3123

BETWEEN
IVAN JUNIOR HALL

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 4 November 2021

Appearances:

D M Goodlet for Appellant

F E S F Girgis and M H Cooke for Respondent

Judgment:

18 November 2021

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

Introduction

[1] On 2 March 2021, the appellant, Ivan Junior Hall, pleaded guilty to charges of injuring with intent to injure,1 threatening to kill (2)2 and attempting to pervert the course of justice.3 The guilty pleas were entered following a sentence indication given by Judge Crayton in the Whanganui District Court on 23 February 2021. On 24 September 2021, Mr Hall was sentenced by Judge Krebs4 to 27 months and two weeks’ imprisonment.5

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 306(1)(a); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 117(e); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4      I am told Judge Crayton was unavailable and Mr Hall consented to sentence being imposed by Judge Krebs.
5      R v Hall [2021] NZDC 19126.

HALL v R [2021] NZHC 3123 [18 November 2021]

[2] The sentence indication recorded that counsel for Mr Hall would be securing reports to address both cultural and addiction/rehabilitative factors and that final credits would be left open to be fixed at sentencing.

[3] Mr Hall appeals against the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive. He submits that a greater discount should have been given for mitigating factors.

Background

[4] Mr Hall and the victim had been in a relationship for around nine years. They separated prior to November 2019. They have two children who were aged three and eight years old at the time of the offending. Fortunately, they were not present when the offending occurred.

[5] On 9 November 2019, the victim was at her home address when Mr Hall arrived uninvited. His new partner accompanied him. Mr Hall entered the house. As he approached the victim, he had in his hand a large butcher’s knife. He proceeded to punch her in the head a number of times. When she fell to the ground Mr Hall continued to punch her in the head and kick her approximately five times. He then stomped on her back.

[6] While she was lying on the ground Mr Hall grabbed her throat and strangled her to the point she thought she was going to pass out. As he strangled her, Mr Hall held the knife to her throat and told the victim he was going to kill her.

[7] The victim suffered a fracture to her nasal bone, a broken tooth, bruising to her lung, eyes and face.

[8] On 14 February 2020, Mr Hall was arrested and charged in relation to this offending. He was remanded in custody and a non-contact condition made pursuant to s 168A of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 was imposed. On 3 March 2020, Mr Hall sent two…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hall v The Queen [2021] NZHC 3123
Case: [2021] NZHC 3123
Decision Date: 18 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ivan Junior Hall appeals against his sentence for injuring with intent, threatening to kill, and attempting to pervert the course of justice, arguing that the 27 months and two weeks’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The District Court had imposed a starting point of three years and six months’ imprisonment, applied a 25 per cent discount for a guilty plea and a 10 per cent discount for personal mitigating factors. The Crown argued the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that a greater discount should have been given for mitigating factors, specifically a 10 per cent discount for the cultural report, a 10 per cent discount for rehabilitative efforts and a discrete discount for the two months spent on electronically monitored bail at the Bridge Programme. The court considered that Mr Hall’s childhood was marred by drugs, alcohol, violence and deprivation, and that his background was likely to have impaired his choice and reduced his moral culpability. The court accepted the argument that a discount to recognise Mr Hall’s rehabilitative measures was appropriate. The court accepted that a discount of 15 per cent to reflect both the cultural and rehabilitative factors and Mr Hall’s remorse was appropriate, along with a 25 per cent discount for guilty pleas. The court also considered it appropriate to give a further discount of one month for the time spent on electronically monitored bail. The appeal was allowed and the sentence was quashed and substituted with a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment.

Orders