Jefferies v Police - [2019] NZHC 2702

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2019-409-000106

[2019] NZHC 2702

BETWEEN
SHANNON LEE JEFFERIES

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 October 2019

Appearances:

M Barrell for Appellant S Dayal for Respondent

Judgment:

22 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Shannon Jefferies, pleaded guilty to a charge of common assault. He was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment on 15 July 2019 by Judge Garland.1 The appellant appeals that sentence on the basis it was manifestly excessive.

Facts

[2] The appellant was in a relationship with the victim for about two months. He became concerned about whether she was being faithful to him and he arranged for a female associate to meet the victim at the appellant’s home and assault her. He picked the victim up from her home address and drove her to his address. When they arrived they were approached by the female associate, who grabbed the victim by the hair and

1 Police v Jeffries [2019] NZDC 13717.

JEFFERIES v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2702 [22 October 2019]

pulled her out of the vehicle while throwing punches at her head. The victim was dragged into the appellant’s home, where the assault continued. The associate threw several more punches with both hands directed at the victim’s head and face, connecting multiple times. The appellant stood by and watched the assault, making no effort to stop it.

[3] The victim received swelling to the back of her head and face and two black eyes.

Principles on appeal

[4] Appeals against sentence are allowed as of right by s 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and must be determined in accordance with s 250 of that Act. An appeal against sentence may only be allowed by this Court if it is satisfied that there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed.2 As the Court of Appeal mentioned in Tutakangahau v R quoting the lower court’s decision, a “court will not intervene where the sentence is within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles”.3 It is only appropriate for this Court to intervene and substitute its own views if the sentence being appealed is “manifestly excessive” and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles.4

District Court decision

[5] Judge Garland considered the appellant’s history of violence, including convictions for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, male assaults female, common assault and assault with intent to injure for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years and six months. He noted that as a consequence of the assault, the appellant had now been recalled to prison for the charges he was sentenced to in 2012.

2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 250(2) and 250(3).
3      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [36].
4      Ripia v R [2011] NZCA 101 at [15].

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 Jefferies v Police

Details

AGLC: Jefferies v Police [2019] NZHC 2702
Case: [2019] NZHC 2702
Decision Date: 22 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shannon Lee Jefferies, the appellant, has appealed against the sentence of six months' imprisonment imposed on him for common assault. The sentencing was carried out by Judge Garland. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The High Court considered the appellant's history of violence, including convictions for grievous bodily harm and assault. The appellant had arranged for a female associate to assault the victim, who was in a relationship with him. The victim suffered swelling to her head and face as well as two black eyes. The District Court considered the appellant's history of violence and his role in the assault in determining the starting point of eight months. The appellant's guilty plea resulted in a reduction of two months, resulting in a final sentence of six months' imprisonment.

The appellant argued that the starting point was manifestly excessive and that the court should have taken into account his lowered culpability as he was not the primary offender. The appellant also argued that the time spent in prison on recall for previous offending should have been taken into account in determining the length of the new sentence. The court considered that the appellant played a significant part in the assault and that the starting point adopted by the District Court was at the lower end of available sentences for the severity of the attack involved. The court also considered that the appellant could have received a net discount of around one month from the sentence for this offending to reflect both the time spent in custody on recall and the fact the offending occurred while on parole. However, the court found that the sentence of six months was not manifestly excessive, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders