Heydon v The Queen - [2017] NZHC 1127

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2017-412-9 [2017] NZHC 1127

BETWEEN
LOGAN WILLIAM HEYDON

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 23 May 2017

Appearances:

A Pinnock for the Appellant
M Cooke for the Respondent

Judgment:

26 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] The appellant, Logan Heydon, was sentenced to three years and four months imprisonment on a charge of aggravated robbery. He appeals his sentence on the ground it was manifestly excessive. The focus of his appeal is a submission of unjust disparity with the sentence imposed on a co-offender who performed a similar role in the offending.

Background

[2] At around 1.00 am in the morning, Mr Heydon together with five other young men travelled to a residential address for the purpose of robbing the occupants. Mr Heydon and another young man, Mr Lynn, each drove a motor vehicle to transport two of their associates who were disguised and armed with weapons. After their four associates entered the house they each remained with their vehicles, acting as lookouts.

[3] The four men who entered the house threatened the male and female victims with their weapons. These included what appeared to be a pistol (in fact an
inoperable BB gun), a knife, an axe and a wheel brace. Four hundred and fifty

HEYDON v R [2017] NZHC 1127 [26 May 2017]

dollars in cash and an ounce of cannabis were taken after the firearm was presented

to the male occupant’s head and a knife held to the throat of the female victim.

[4] After the robbers came from the house, Messrs Heydon and Lynn each drove two of the armed men to a location to divide the money and drugs.

District Court decision

[5] Following the guideline judgment of R v Mako a starting point of eight years imprisonment, described by the sentencing Judge as being at the lower end of the range, was adopted.1 Because of Mr Heydon’s lesser role as a driver the starting point was reduced to one of seven years imprisonment.

[6] From that point, the sentencing Judge allowed a 10 per cent credit for youth (20 years of age) and previous good character (absence of previous convictions for serious violent offending), 5 per cent in recognition of Mr Heydon’s background of mental health issues, 5 per cent for remorse, and 25 per cent for his guilty plea.

[7] The sentence was further reduced by four months to recognise that for Mr Heydon his first term of imprisonment was going to be difficult. The sentence of three years and six months imprisonment was further reduced by two months in recognition of Mr Heydon’s participation in a restorative justice conference which the victims had found helpful.

The appeal

[8] Three grounds of appeal were relied upon by Mr Heydon in support of his submission that the sentence was manifestly excessive:

(a) That Mr Heydon’s sentence of three years and four months imprisonment when compared with the sentence of two years imprisonment which was…

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 Heydon v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Heydon v The Queen [2017] NZHC 1127
Case: [2017] NZHC 1127
Decision Date: 26 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Logan William Heydon appeals the sentence imposed upon him for aggravated robbery. He argues that his sentence of three years and four months imprisonment is manifestly excessive and unjustly disproportionate to the sentence received by his co-offender, Mr Lynn, who received a sentence of two years imprisonment converted to 10 months home detention. Heydon further submits that the sentencing Judge failed to afford adequate credit to his limited involvement in the robbery, his remorse, offer to make amends, and the time spent by him on bail. The appeal court must decide whether the starting point for Heydon’s sentence was too high, whether there was an unjustified disparity between Heydon’s sentence and that of his co-offenders, and whether the sentencing Judge afforded Heydon adequate credit for mitigating factors. The court finds that the starting point was appropriate and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The sentencing Judge was fully cognisant of the relative youth of Heydon and his co-offenders and their facing the prospect of being sent to prison for the first time. The sentencing Judge was equally concerned when sentencing Heydon of the need to impose the least restrictive outcome available to him in the circumstances. The court found no error by the sentencing Judge. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders