Leatherby v The King - [2024] NZHC 296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2024-443-002

[2024] NZHC 296

BETWEEN
CURTIS TIEPI LEATHERBY

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 20 February 2024 (via VMR)

Appearances:

J C Hannam for Appellant

J M Woodcock for Respondent

Judgment:

23 February 2024

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1] On 22 December 2024, Judge Greig sentenced the appellant,1 to three years imprisonment on three charges of male assaults female,2 one charge of assault with intent to injure,3 and one charge of strangulation.4

[2] The offending involved domestic violence by the appellant against his then partner on three separate occasions between June 2018 and August 2019.

[3] The appellant appeals his sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive. It is submitted that the starting point was too high, and an insufficient reduction was given for the plea of guilty. The appellant submits that a starting point of three years to three years six months is appropriate, rather than four years, and that the Court can allow a 10 per cent reduction for the plea of guilty, amounting to a total discount of

1      R v Leatherby [2023] NZDC 29179 [Decision on appeal].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 194(b) — maximum penalty of two years.
3      Section 193 — maximum penalty of three years.
4      Section 189A — maximum penalty of seven years.

LEATHERBY v R [2024] NZHC 296 [29623 February 2024]

29.5 per cent being available. The appellant contends that a final sentence in the range of 25 months to 29 months results is appropriate.

[4] The Crown opposes the appeal. It says the sentence imposed was within range and available to the Judge.

The offending

[5] The charges relate to three separate incidents. Prior to the first incident, the appellant and the victim had been in a relationship for around two years. The relationship started when the victim was 18 and the appellant was 29. Sometime between June and September 2018, following an argument, the appellant removed the victim from the shower by her hair and feet and took her to the lounge and punched her in the stomach. The victim ran from the address, but was followed by the appellant who told her to get in the car. After she complied, they drove to a remote location, where the victim was removed from the car, and the appellant stood over her as she cried, threatening to beat her and leave her there.

[6] The second incident occurred in December 2018. The victim was driving the appellant after he had been drinking. The appellant accused the victim of cheating on him and when she denied this, he punched her in the head. The victim pulled over, got out of the car and started walking home. The appellant then got into the drivers’ seat and drove alongside her, telling her to get back in the car. She complied, and the appellant drove the car a short distance before pulling over. He…

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 Leatherby v The King

Details

AGLC: Leatherby v The King [2024] NZHC 296
Case: [2024] NZHC 296
Decision Date: 23 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Curtis Tiepi Leatherby, the appellant, has brought an appeal against the sentence imposed by the District Court, arguing that it is manifestly excessive. The appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment for various charges of domestic violence against his then partner, occurring between June 2018 and August 2019. The respondent, The King, opposes the appeal and submits the sentence was within the range available to the Judge.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the starting point and the discount for the guilty plea were appropriately assessed. The appellant argued that the starting point should have been lower, and that a greater discount for the guilty plea should have been applied. The Crown submitted that the sentence was within the range available to the Judge, and that the discount for the guilty plea was appropriately low given the significant delay in entering the plea.

The Court held that the Judge correctly identified the starting point for the strangulation and assault with intent to injure charges as three years, falling within the medium band identified in Shramka v R. The Court found the uplifts for the three male assaults female charges were also within range, considering the cumulative effect of the three incidents and the aggravating factors present. Regarding the discount for the guilty plea, the Court found that the substantial delay in entering the plea resulted in the victim and the prosecution having to prepare for trial, reducing the benefits of a guilty plea. The Court concluded that the five per cent discount appropriately reflected the modest extent to which the appellant's actions achieved the objectives of the legislation. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was within the range available to the Judge.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal is dismissed.

Orders