[1] Mr Judson was sentenced to 3 years six months’ imprisonment on charges of cruelty to an animal, wilful damage, male assaults female (x2), assault with intent to injure, wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice and threatening to kill. He now appeals against this sentence.

Background

[2] I adopt the description of the offending made by Judge M L S F Burnett which is not challenged:

[2] The defendant, you Mr Judson, and the victim are in a relationship and the first offence in time relates to 21 May 2017. You and the victim were at home. You have young children. Your six-year-old was present. You punched the victim in the back of the head four or five times with enough force that your left hand broke. The victim suffered a large lump on the back of her head and a swollen ear so that is the damage you inflicted on her on that occasion.

[3] The next charge is cruelty to an animal and male assaults female on 5
June 2017. You again were at home with the victim and a puppy was also present. You placed your hands around the puppy’s throat to pick it up and you carried it this way to the back door where you threw the puppy out. When the victim confronted you about this, you then punched her numerous times on the arm and you inflicted bruising to her arm as a result.

[4] The next occasion is male assaults female and the wilful damage charge. On 12 June, you punched the victim twice in the back as she was lying in bed. When she tried to get up and get away, you kicked her in the leg and this caused her to fall over. When she put some clothes into her car to leave, you went out to the car and hit it with a broom which left a dent in the car.

[5] Between 8 and 14 July you spoke to the complainant, coaching her to give an alternative version as to what had occurred so that when she was to give evidence in Court she would not be telling the truth and the accuracy about what you had done to her, but rather give an innocent version about these charges. Also, you thought that she would sign a letter to a Justice of the Peace.

[6] On 26 July finally you had been remanded in custody and…

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 Judson v Police

Details

AGLC: Judson v Police [2018] NZHC 110
Case: [2018] NZHC 110
Decision Date: 13 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Judson v Police, the appellant, Mr Judson, is contesting the sentence imposed on him by Judge Burnett, which totalled 3 years and 6 months for various charges including cruelty to animals, wilful damage, male assaults female, assault with intent to injure, attempting to pervert the course of justice and threatening to kill. The appellant argues that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that the judge erred in the process by which the sentence was reached. The appellant’s grounds of appeal were that the judge double-counted the significance of the fact that he offended while subject to release conditions and, in the case of the perverting charge, while on bail; failed to acknowledge the totality principle; and that the sentence overreaches the culpability of the offending, having regard to relevant case law. The respondent argued that the starting point in the range of 2 years 3 months and 2 years 6 months could have been adopted, rendering moot the complaint about the uplift of 18 months for the perverting the course of justice charge. The judge dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The court found that the appellant’s offending was a combination of serious offences, including several separate acts of domestic violence, cruelty to animals, a threat to kill and an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The court found that the starting point for the domestic violence offending adopted by the judge was generous to the appellant, and that a start point in the order of 24 months for the multiple acts of violence, including attacks to the head and three separate incidents of offending, would not have been out of range. The court found that the 18-month starting point for the perverting the course of justice charge was within range, and that the invitation to a victim of domestic violence to pervert the course of justice by a defendant with multiple prior convictions for domestic violent abuse and breach of protection orders, was a serious matter warranting a clear deterrent sentence. The court also found that the uplifts for the cruelty, wilful damage, the threat to kill offending, breach of release conditions and for Mr Judson’s parlous prior domestic violence history were warranted. The court found that the 50-month starting point adopted by the Judge for the combined offending, while harsh, was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sum of the parts in this case did not exceed the totality of the offending, and that a stern message was clearly needed, particularly given Mr Judson’s very recent history of domestic violence offending. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders