Lee v Police - [2017] NZHC 2507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2017-409-000113 [2017] NZHC 2507

BETWEEN
HYUNG SOEK LEE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 3 October 2017

Appearances:

P J Doody for the Appellant
S J Mallett for the Respondent

Judgment:

13 October 2017

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] In March 2017, Mr Lee was living at an address in Christchurch with two other young people. One was described as his ex-partner. The other was described in the summary of facts as her new partner. These flatmates were the victims of Mr Lee’s offending.

[2] Around 3.10 am on Sunday morning, Mr Lee returned to his home intoxicated. He became aware that his ex-partner was in bed with the other flatmate. Mr Lee entered the woman’s bedroom and jumped on the male flatmate. He punched him, grabbed him by the throat and began strangling him with two hands until it was difficult for him to breath. Mr Lee then bit the victim on the right side of his face around the cheek and ear, drawing blood, and gouged at his right eye. The assault moved from the bed on to the bedroom floor where Mr Lee continued to bite and scratch the male victim, biting him approximately 11 times in total, causing large
welts and drawing blood. The male victim was able to fight back and escape the

LEE v POLICE [2017] NZHC 2507 [13 October 2017]

bedroom. He ran and hid from Mr Lee in a different upstairs bedroom along a mezzanine floor. The female flatmate also left her bedroom and hid elsewhere in the house.

[3] Mr Lee left the bedroom where he had initially attacked the male victim, went downstairs and collected a large carving knife, approximately 30 centimetres long, from the kitchen. He then went upstairs carrying the carving knife, yelling “where is he”. He entered the female flatmate’s bedroom, kicking her bedroom door, causing it to disintegrate. He entered her bedroom and began stabbing the mattress with the carving knife.

[4] A short time later, he saw the male victim on the mezzanine floor. He moved towards him. The male victim, fearing for his life, jumped off the mezzanine floor, falling approximately three and a half metres and impaling himself on a glass ornamental vase, causing a number of deep lacerations to his buttock area. The male victim was then able to run from the house.

[5] Mr Lee ran downstairs and was confronted by the female victim. While still holding the carving knife, he pushed her several times, slamming her head into a wall.

[6] Mr Lee pleaded guilty to one charge of assault with intent to injure (maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment) and one charge of injuring with intent to injure (maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment).

[7] On 15 August 2017, Mr Lee was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and one month. He appeals against that sentence.

Principles on appeal

[8] Appeals against sentence…

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 Lee v Police

Details

AGLC: Lee v Police [2017] NZHC 2507
Case: [2017] NZHC 2507
Decision Date: 13 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court was asked to consider whether the District Court had erred in sentencing Mr Lee to imprisonment for two years and one month for his offending. Mr Lee had pleaded guilty to assault with intent to injure and injuring with intent to injure. The sentencing Judge had noted the extreme violence of the offending and the serious injuries suffered by the victims. He had also noted there were no mitigating features relating to the offending but had regard to Mr Lee’s youth and his lack of previous convictions. The Judge had adopted a starting point of three and a half years’ imprisonment, discounted for personal mitigating factors and guilty pleas, to arrive at a sentence of 25 months. Mr Lee appealed against the sentence. The Court found that the starting point was too high, the discount for mitigating factors was appropriate but the discount for guilty pleas was excessive. The Court found that a sentence of home detention and community work was the least restrictive sentence that should have been imposed. The appeal was allowed, the sentence of imprisonment was quashed and Mr Lee was sentenced to home detention for 10 months and 60 hours of community work.

Orders