Jahnke v The King - [2024] NZHC 3093

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2024-488-000090

[2024] NZHC 3093

BETWEEN
MARTIN WERNA JAHNKE

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 17 October 2024

Appearances:

M E Jenkins for Appellant

B M Bosomworth for Respondent

Judgment:

24 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Andrew on 24 October 2024 at 11.00 am
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Date ……………………..

JAHNKE v R [2024] NZHC 3093 [24 October 2024]

Introduction

[1]This is an appeal against sentence.

[2] In the District Court, the appellant pleaded guilty to the following four charges, following a resolution agreement between the Crown and defence:

(a)Injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm x 2;1

(b)Strangulation;2 and

(c)Kidnapping.3

[3] The District Court Judge adopted a starting point of six-and-a-half years’ imprisonment for all of the offending. He then allowed the following discounts:

(a)10 per cent for early guilty plea;

(b)20 per cent for background factors;

(c)20 per cent for rehabilitation and remorse;

(d)Five months’ discount for time on EM bail; and

(e)Three months’ discount for totality.

[4]The end sentence imposed was two years and seven months’ imprisonment.

[5] The appellant contends that the end sentence was manifestly excessive. It is said that the starting point adopted was too high and that the discounts for remorse and rehabilitation were too low.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(1); maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, s 189A(b); maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, s 209; maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.

Factual background

[6] In September 2022, Mr Jahnke was in the company of Mr Adam Lord, his co- offender. They drove to the victim’s address in Kaikohe. They had earlier stopped at the address of an associate and had discussed whether the victim had stolen antiques from the associate.

[7] Upon arrival at the victim’s address, Mr Lord advised he would speak to the victim about the stealing of the associate’s antiques. Mr Jahnke remained in the car.

[8] Mr Lord walked into the victim’s house through the front door. He then confronted the victim in an aggressive manner, accusing him of stealing antiques and owing money to Mr Lord for firewood – claiming the victim had failed to pay an account of approximately $3,000. Mr Lord then ordered the victim to get into his vehicle. He intended to take him to the property of the antiques owner. However, the victim refused to get into the car. Mr Lord then threatened him. He then grabbed him by the arm and tried to pull him out of the house. The victim resisted. The victim then walked to a ranch-slider where he was grabbed by Mr Jahnke.

[9] Both Mr Lord and Mr Jahnke then dragged the victim out of the house. The victim tried to run away. The victim was placed in a headlock and dragged back to the vehicle. He managed to…

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 Jahnke v The King

Details

AGLC: Jahnke v The King [2024] NZHC 3093
Case: [2024] NZHC 3093
Decision Date: 24 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns the sentence imposed by the District Court on Martin Werna Jahnke for various violent offences, including injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, strangulation, and kidnapping. The appellant, Mr Jahnke, argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, primarily contending that the starting point was too high and the discounts for remorse and rehabilitation were too low. The District Court Judge had set a starting point of six-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, then applied several discounts, ultimately resulting in a sentence of two years and seven months’ imprisonment.

The court considered whether the starting point of six-and-a-half years was appropriate given the nature of the offences and the appellant's level of involvement. The court noted that the District Court Judge had correctly identified significant aggravating factors, such as the seriousness and premeditated nature of the violence, the use of weapons, and the involvement of multiple offenders. The court held that the starting point was within the correct range and appropriately reflected the appellant's greater culpability.

Further, the court addressed the appellant's argument regarding the discount for rehabilitation and remorse. The District Court Judge had combined the discounts for these factors into a single 20 per cent reduction. The appellant argued for separate discounts, with a larger reduction for remorse. The court found that the Judge's approach was orthodox and reasonable, as he had acknowledged both the appellant's rehabilitation efforts and his remorse.

In conclusion, the court rejected both grounds of appeal, finding that the sentence imposed was within the range justified by accepted sentencing principles. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The court's final orders were that the appeal was dismissed and the original sentence of two years and seven months’ imprisonment was upheld.

Orders