Legal Research
Cases
Jay v The King

Jay v The King

Case [2025] NZHC 145 12 February 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000565

[2025] NZHC 145

BETWEEN
HENRY JAY

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 10 February 2025

Appearances:

M Ryan for Appellant

H Brown for Respondent

Judgment:

12 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF HARVEY J

This judgment is delivered by me on 12 February 2025 at 4 pm.

…………………………………………….
Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
Mark Ryan, Barrister, Auckland
Kayes Fletcher White Limited, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Manukau

JAY v R [2025] NZHC 145 [12 February 2025]

Introduction

[1] On 2 October 2024, Judge B A Gibson sentenced Henry Jay to five years’ imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to representative charges of threatening to kill,1 injuring with intent to injure,2 assault with a weapon3 and two assaults against a person in a family relationship.4 He also pleaded guilty to a charge of strangulation.5 Mr Jay now appeals his sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive and that insufficient adjustments were made for his guilty pleas, remorse and rehabilitation.

[2] The Crown opposes the appeal arguing that the appropriate discounts, where relevant, were correctly applied. The sentence was therefore not manifestly excessive.

District Court decision

[3]The Judge summarised the offending:6

[3] The offending took place some time ago, about four years ago, when you were about 24 years of age. It involved your partner at the time. There were numerous offences committed against her. The summary of facts, which you have accepted by pleading guilty, relays a whole series of assaults on your partner, both in her home and also in vehicles when she was travelling with you when arguments would sometimes breakout. Often, following an assault, she would be left on the side of the road, and in one case, without her phone. You shot at her with a paintball gun and she was hit in the eye. She suffered a bruise also on another occasion when you shot her with a paintball gun.

[4] The assaults were serious. The most serious one was the strangulation. The summary notes that you were at her home in Weymouth. Also present was another man. An argument erupted between the two of you. That escalated to a physical altercation where she ended up on her stomach and she was crawling along the hallway by the front door. You straddled her, placed both your hands around her neck from behind and squeezed with enough pressure to cut off her airflow. When you felt her body was beginning to relax and she was about to slip into unconsciousness, you let her go, allowing her to breathe, but you then repeated that action five times, resulting in her nearly becoming unconscious over the course of several minutes. Eventually she was able to crawl or make her way to a bedroom where she lay down on a bed, but you followed and continued to strangle her while she was on the bed. The summary notes she suffered redness to her neck…

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 Jay v The King

Details

AGLC: Jay v The King [2025] NZHC 145
Case: [2025] NZHC 145
Decision Date: 12 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Henry Jay appeals the sentence imposed on him by Judge B A Gibson after he pleaded guilty to charges of threatening to kill, injuring with intent, assault with a weapon, assault against a person in a family relationship, and strangulation. Mr Jay argues that the sentence is manifestly excessive and that insufficient discounts were applied for his guilty pleas, remorse, and rehabilitation. The Crown opposes the appeal, arguing that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the appropriate discounts were applied.

The court found that while the delay in Mr Jay's guilty pleas and the minor amendments to the charges and summary of facts arguably lessened the overall criminality of the offending, the changes were not significant enough to justify a substantial alteration to the end sentence. The court further found that while Mr Jay's remorse and rehabilitation efforts may have warranted some discount, the Judge was entitled to view these factors in light of Mr Jay's recidivist offending and previous convictions for domestic violence. The court held that even if the Judge had erred by failing to provide adequate reductions, the end sentence would still not have been manifestly unjust.

The appeal is dismissed. The sentence imposed by Judge B A Gibson is affirmed.

Orders