Lawrence v The King - [2024] NZHC 2514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2024-443-000021

[2024] NZHC 2514

BETWEEN
KURT WILLIAM LAWRENCE

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 3 September 2024

Counsel:

P M Keegan for Appellant

O A Jessop Boivin and P D Marshall for Respondent

Judgment:

3 September 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT OF RADICH J

[1] Kurt Lawrence was convicted of domestic violence charges against his partner at the time, comprising one charge of wounding with intent to injure,1 one charge of strangulation,2 and one charge of injuring with intent to injure3. He was convicted also of one charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice.4 Judge Hikaka sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment for these convictions on 12 June 2024,5 after Mr Lawrence had pleaded guilty following a sentence indication on 2 February 2024.6

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2); maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 189A(b); maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 189(2); maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 117(e); maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
5      R v Lawrence [2024] NZDC 13564 [Sentencing decision].
6      R v Lawrence DC New Plymouth CRI-2023-043-0000410, 2 February 2024 [Sentencing indication].

LAWRENCE v R [2024] NZHC 2514 [3 September 2024]

[2] Mr Lawrence appeals now from the Judge’s sentencing decision on the basis that insufficient discounts were given. He does not dispute the starting points taken by the District Court Judge.

The offending

[3] The domestic charges arise out of two separate incidents. The first came about after Mr Lawrence became angry at the victim, standing above her and yelling at her while she was sitting on the floor with her head in her hands. Mr Lawrence suddenly kicked her in the face hard enough to make her lose consciousness. The victim’s injuries were extensive. At the time of the kick, she bled heavily from her right eye, face, nose and mouth. The kick fractured her orbital eye socket. To remedy the harm, she needed to undergo surgery; a metal plate was secured permanently to the left side of her face to support her facial bones. She continues to suffer from related migraines. At the time of the kick, Mr Lawrence blamed the victim, saying it was her fault he had become angry.

[4] The second incident occurred almost two and a half years later. The two had continued their relationship. They lived together at this time and had a child, who was still an infant at the time of the incident. Mr Lawrence and the victim got into an argument, after which the victim told Mr Lawrence to leave the house. He took hold of the child and threatened to take the child away from the victim. When the victim attempted to get the child from Mr Lawrence, he used one hand to lift the victim off the ground by the front of her shirt and threw her onto a clothes horse. When she got back up…

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 Lawrence v The King

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v The King [2024] NZHC 2514
Case: [2024] NZHC 2514
Decision Date: 3 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kurt William Lawrence appeals against his sentence for domestic violence and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The appeal focuses on the adequacy of the discounts applied by the sentencing Judge. The High Court of New Zealand heard the appeal on 3 September 2024 and delivered its judgment the same day. The appellant was represented by P M Keegan, while the respondent was represented by O A Jessop Boivin and P D Marshall. Lawrence was sentenced to four years' imprisonment by Judge Hikaka, following a guilty plea. The appeal challenges the sufficiency of the discounts for personal factors and remorse. Both parties agree that the effective discount for personal factors, excluding the guilty plea, was 18 per cent. Lawrence argues that this discount is insufficient due to the significant impact of his upbringing and addiction on his offending. The Crown contends that the discount was appropriate and within the range established by precedents. The High Court found that the Judge's assessment of the impact of Lawrence's upbringing and addiction was insufficient, leading to a lower discount than warranted. The Court concluded that the appropriate discount for these factors should be 22 per cent, resulting in an overall discount of 47 per cent from the starting point of seven years. This led to a sentence of three years and eight months' imprisonment, which the Court substituted for the original four-year sentence.

Orders