Jones v The Queen - [2019] NZHC 1816

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2019-416-10

[2019] NZHC 1816

BETWEEN
MICHAEL JONES

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 26 July 2019

Appearances:

V L Thorpe for Appellant

K L Kensington for Respondent

Judgment:

30 July 2019

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

[Appeal against sentence]

[1] Mr Jones appeals a sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment imposed by the District Court on 22 March 2019.1 The charges on which Mr Jones was convicted were aggravated burglary;2 discharging a firearm with intent to injure;3 and assault with a weapon.4

[2] On the aggravated burglary charge, the final sentence was three years and nine months’ imprisonment. The sentence on each of the other charges was two years’ imprisonment. All sentences run concurrently.5 On the conviction for aggravated robbery Mr Jones was given a three strikes warning.6

1      R v Jones [2019] NZDC 5391.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 66(1)–(2) and 232(1)(a); maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 66(1)–(2) and 198(2); maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Sections 66(1)–(2) and 202C; maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
5      R v Jones, above n 1, at [47]–[50].
6      At [1]–[3].

JONES v R [2019] NZHC 1816 [30 July 2019]

[3] The issue in this appeal is whether the Judge should have applied a global discount for Mr Jones’ guilty plea and personal mitigating factors.

[4] The Judge followed the process of first deducting 18 months’ imprisonment from the starting point of 78 months for personal mitigating factors, before applying the guilty plea discount of 25 per cent to that discounted amount. The Judge’s application of discrete discounts resulted in a sentence of 45 months, or three years and nine months’ imprisonment. Combining the early guilty plea of 25 per cent and the personal factors discount of 18 months, or 23 per cent, would have resulted in a 48 per cent discount from the starting point of 78 months. That the combined approach been followed, the final sentence would have been 40 months imprisonment, or three years and four months’ imprisonment.

Background

[5] The facts leading to Mr Jones’ convictions are not in dispute. The Judge outlined the background as follows:7

[4] As you know, you appear for sentence not only on that aggravated burglary charge, but also the charges of discharging a firearm with intent to injure and assault with a weapon. There are agreed facts. There is no suggestion by the Crown you personally carried out any one of the specific physical acts mentioned, notwithstanding your desire to claim otherwise. I will talk about this shortly.

[5] The Crown presents your culpability as a party. At the outset, the Crown contends that along with your two co-offenders you are equally culpable for what occurred on 25 April 2018 as far as gravity of offending is concerned.

[6] At approximately 6.30 pm on 25 April 2018 you and your two associates (one of whom remains unknown) travelled 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 Jones v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jones v The Queen [2019] NZHC 1816
Case: [2019] NZHC 1816
Decision Date: 30 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Michael Jones appealed a sentence of three years and nine months' imprisonment imposed by the District Court. Jones was convicted of aggravated burglary, discharging a firearm with intent to injure, and assault with a weapon. The appeal centred on whether the Judge should have applied a global discount for Jones' guilty plea and personal mitigating factors. The District Court Judge had applied the orthodox three-stage sentencing approach by deducting 18 months' imprisonment for personal mitigating factors before applying the guilty plea discount of 25 per cent to the discounted amount, resulting in a sentence of 45 months, or three years and nine months' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal held that there was no error in the sentence imposed on Jones. The sentence was not manifestly excessive. While the global discount method may be appropriate in certain cases, this was not one of them. The Court of Appeal held that the Judge made no error in applying the sentencing principles nor in the sentencing process followed. The end sentence was well within the appropriate range. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders