JAYDEN MAUGHAM AND THE KING - [2024] NZHC 2108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-569

[2024] NZHC 2108

BETWEEN
JAYDEN MAUGHAM

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 10 December 2024

Appearances:

C Taylor for Appellant H Bell for Crown

Judgment:

10 December 2024

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland C Taylor, Barrister, Northland

MAUGHAM v R [2024] NZHC 2108 [10 December 2024]

Introduction

[1] Jayden Maugham appeals against a sentence imposed on him by the District Court,1 in respect of the following charges:

(a)injuring with intent to injure;2

(b)contravening protection order;3

(c)resisting police;4

(d)assaulting police;5

(e)failing to stop for red and blue flashing lights;6 and

(f)driving while disqualified.7

[2] He was sentenced on 13 September 2024 by Judge K Maxwell to an end sentence of three years and one months’ imprisonment.

[3]Mr Maugham appeals against his sentence on the following grounds:

(a)the Judge erred by adopting a manifestly excessive starting point for the lead charge of injuring with intent to injure, namely two years and nine months’ imprisonment; and

(b)allowed insufficient credit for:

1      New Zealand Police v Maugham [2024] NZDC 22263.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2). Maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment.
3      Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(b) and 112(1)(a) and (3). Maximum penalty: three years’ imprisonment.
4      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 23(a). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment or $2,000 fine.
5      Section 10. Maximum penalty: six months’ imprisonment or $4,000 fine.
6      Land Transport Act 1998, s 52A (1)(a)(ii) and 114(2).   Maximum penalty: $10,000 fine and   six months’ disqualification.
7      Section 32(1)(a) 3).     Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment or $4,500 fine; and six months’ disqualification.

(i)guilty plea; and

(ii)rehabilitative prospects.

[4] In submissions before me today, Mr Taylor responsibly acknowledges that the appellant’s position does have to be assessed against the fact that the Judge did not apply any uplift; and accepts that the matter is finely balanced, but nevertheless says that there are available discounts that should have been applied and would result in an adjustment that would be more than tinkering.

[5] The Crown opposes the appeal and says the starting point was within range. The guilty plea for the lead offending was entered on the morning of the rescheduled trial after Mr Maugham had absconded from his bail resulting in considerable delay. The Crown submits that no discount was appropriate for rehabilitative prospects in the circumstances and says that the end sentence is not manifestly excessive.

Background

[6] On 7 May 2020, Mr Maugham and the victim of the injuring with intent to injure charge both lived at a residential village in Albany. At about 7 pm on 7 May 2020, Mr Maugham went to the victim’s address and accused the victim of snooping around his place. He then struck the victim above the ear on the left-hand side of his head with a piece of greenstone attached to a necklace.

[7] Mr Maugham continued the assault, striking the victim on the other side of the…

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 JAYDEN MAUGHAM AND THE KING

Details

AGLC: JAYDEN MAUGHAM AND THE KING [2024] NZHC 2108
Case: [2024] NZHC 2108
Decision Date: 10 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Jayden Maugham against a sentence imposed by the District Court. The sentence was for various charges including injuring with intent to injure, contravening a protection order, resisting police, assaulting police, failing to stop for red and blue flashing lights, and driving while disqualified. Maugham was sentenced to three years and one month's imprisonment. The appeal was against the sentence on the grounds that the starting point for the lead charge was manifestly excessive, and insufficient credit was given for his guilty plea and rehabilitative prospects. The High Court was required to decide whether the starting point and the sentence as a whole were within the appropriate range and whether the District Court appropriately applied discounts for the guilty plea and rehabilitation. The Court considered that the starting point of two years and nine months for the lead charge was not excessive given the presence of multiple aggravating factors such as the use of a weapon, attacking the head, home invasion, and premeditation. The Court found that the restorative justice and pre-sentence reports were inadequate to warrant a discount for rehabilitation or remorse. Although the guilty plea came late, the Court did not consider it appropriate to increase the discount from 10 per cent as it would amount to tinkering with the sentence. The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders