Heaford v Police - [2024] NZHC 421

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2024-442-004

[2024] NZHC 421

BETWEEN
SLOAN THOR HEAFORD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 28 February 2024

Appearances:

R W Ord for Appellant

J T Vuataki for Respondent

Judgment:

1 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

[Sentence appeal]

Introduction

[1] Mr Heaford appeals against his sentence of 17 months’ imprisonment (with leave to apply for home detention) imposed on 16 January 2024 on the following charges that arose from two separate incidents:1

(a)From events that occurred on 13 August 2023: assault with intent to injure, threatening to kill and assault on a person in a family relationship.2

1 Police v Heaford [2024] NZDC 785; the sentence was imposed with standard and special conditions, each to extend six months beyond the sentence expiry date, and with conditions as recommended by Community Probation.
2 Crimes Act 1961, ss 193 (maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment), 306 (maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment) and 194A (maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment) respectively.

HEAFORD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 421 [1 March 2024]

(b)For events that occurred on 17 October 2023 (while on bail for the August charges): driving with excess blood alcohol and driving whilst forbidden.3

[2] Mr Heaford appeals his sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive. He says the starting point was too high and the reduction for personal mitigating factors was too low, in particular, that there should have been a modest Zhang discount.4

Background to the offending

The events of 13 August 2023

[3] The following background to the 13 August offending is taken from the summary of facts that formed the basis of Mr Heaford’s guilty pleas.

[4] As to the assault with intent to injure charge, at about 8:30 pm on 13 August 2023, Mr Heaford was at home with the victim, his partner. It was a new relationship of less than a month’s duration. She was lying in bed eating ice cream when he entered the room in an angry and agitated state over something she had said earlier as well as over her eating habits.

[5] Mr Heaford stood over the victim and grabbed her head, forcing it backwards into the wall behind her. He then knocked her head back a number of times and headbutted her forehead. Mr Heaford then leaned in, bit her cheek and pulled the victim off the bed, tearing her pants. She tried to fight back but he threw her into the wardrobe doors and banged her head on the walls and furniture. Mr Heaford then stood over the victim, rubbed her face into the ice cream she had been eating, and began belittling her.

[6] Mr Heaford told the victim more than once that he would kill her. He then walked away and the victim threw herself out of the bedroom window fearing for her

3 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 56(2) (maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Heaford v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 421
Decision Date: 1 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sloan Thor Heaford appeals against his sentence of 17 months' imprisonment, imposed on 16 January 2024 following his convictions for multiple charges arising from two separate incidents. The first incident, occurring on 13 August 2023, involved assault with intent to injure, threatening to kill, and assault on a person in a family relationship. The second incident, on 17 October 2023, involved driving with excess blood alcohol and driving while forbidden. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly whether the starting point was too high and the reductions for personal mitigating factors were too low. The court found that the starting point was slightly out of the available range and that the uplift for previous convictions was too high. The court also concluded that the level of reduction for personal mitigating factors was appropriate, considering Mr Heaford's addiction issues, rehabilitative prospects, and expressed remorse.

The court re-constructed the sentencing exercise, starting with a global starting point of 24 months for the August charges, adding a one-month uplift for previous family violence convictions, applying a 25% reduction for guilty pleas, and a 16% reduction for personal mitigating factors. This resulted in an end sentence of 15 months' imprisonment. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of 17 months was quashed and substituted with a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment, with leave to apply for home detention.

Orders