Hansen v The Queen - [2020] NZHC 2129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-419-54

[2020] NZHC 2129

BETWEEN
DREW MICHAEL EVANS HANSEN

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 21 August 2020

Appearances:

G Walsh for the Appellant

S D Taylor for the Respondent

Judgment:

21 August 2020

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 August 2020 at 12 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Hamilton Counsel: G Walsh, Hamilton

HANSEN v R [2020] NZHC 2129 [21 August 2020]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Drew Hansen, appeals a sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge RG Marshall in the Hamilton District Court on 10 February 2020.1 Mr Hansen does not challenge his disqualification from driving. An appeal against conviction was abandoned.

[2] The sole ground of appeal is that the starting point adopted by the Judge on the lead charge of assault with intent to injure was too high. In consequence, the final sentence was manifestly excessive.

[3] The Crown submits the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The starting point was within the available range, and the discount given for guilty pleas was appropriate in the circumstances.

[4] The appeal was filed out of time due to issues arising from restrictions in place during the Covid-19 lockdown period. The respondent takes no issue with the late filing. Leave is granted to file the appeal out of time.

Background

[5] Between 1 April 2019 and 11 June 2019, Mr Hansen and the complainant were in a relationship and lived together at a house in Hamilton. Three other preliminary points provide relevant context. First, on 1 September 2018, Mr Hansen was disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers licence for a period of one year from that date. Second, the complainant’s mother also lived at the house and was the lawful occupier. She served a trespass notice on Mr Hansen on 8 June 2019, with effect from the following day (to give him time to retrieve his belongings). Finally, towards the end of their relationship, the complainant became pregnant. Mr Hansen is the father and was aware of her pregnancy.

[6] During the course of their relationship, Mr Hansen assaulted the complainant on four separate occasions.

1 R v Hansen [2020] NZDC 2146.

[7] The first three occasions occurred on unspecified dates during the period of the relationship and are the subject of one representative charge of assault with intent to injure. The first took place in the laundry of their home. There was an argument and when the complainant attempted to leave the room, Mr Hansen blocked the door. Placing his hands around her throat, he raised her and held her against the wall while pressing on her throat. She was unable to breathe and lost consciousness for a few seconds. On the second occasion, the complainant was on a mattress in the lounge at their home. There was an argument. Mr Hansen approached her. He placed his hands around her throat…

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 Hansen v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hansen v The Queen [2020] NZHC 2129
Case: [2020] NZHC 2129
Decision Date: 21 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Hansen v The Queen was brought by Drew Michael Evans Hansen, who challenged the sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment imposed on him by the Hamilton District Court for multiple assaults on his former partner. Hansen argued that the starting point adopted by the Judge for the lead charge of assault with intent to injure was too high, rendering the final sentence manifestly excessive. The Crown defended the sentence, asserting that the starting point was within the appropriate range and that the discount for guilty pleas was suitable. The High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, under Gordon J, assessed the arguments and considered the comparative seriousness of Hansen's repeated assaults against his former partner, particularly focusing on the repetitive nature and the specific targeting of the victim's throat. The court concluded that the starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment was within the appropriate range, considering the severity and frequency of the assaults, and found no error in the Judge’s sentencing. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

This judgment underscores the importance of considering the totality of the offending when determining the appropriate starting point in sentencing. The High Court found that the Judge's assessment was consistent with established sentencing principles and comparable cases, despite the appellant's arguments to the contrary. The decision highlights the need to balance the individual characteristics of each case with broader sentencing guidelines and precedents.

Orders