Lynskey-Reid v Police - [2016] NZHC 1991

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-409-000054 [2016] NZHC 1991

BETWEEN
JACKSON PHILLIP LYNSKEY-REID

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 23 August 2016

Appearances:

J Lucas for Appellant
E J Henderson and K South for Respondent

Judgment:

25 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Mr Lynskey-Reid appeals the decision of the District Court not to grant a discharge without conviction on one charge of wounding with intent to injure. Instead he was sentenced to five months’ community detention on top of the $10,000 he offered to pay the victim as reparation for emotional harm.1

Background

[2] On the night of 12 September 2015, the appellant and his friends showed up at a university students’ party. A fight broke out and the appellant became involved. The victim walked out of the house, saw the fight on the street and went to stop it. As he was walking across the road, the appellant approached him and struck him with a bottle to the back of the head. The victim received a deep wound to the left side of his back near his neck. He also had a cut on his ear, and bruising to the left side of his head. He was treated at Christchurch Hospital and received three internal
stitches and seven external stitches to the wound on his back.

1 Police v Lynskey-Reid [2016] NZDC 10599.

LYNSKEY-REID v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 1991 [25 August 2016]

[3] The appellant’s affidavit says that when he became involved in the fight he was “getting pushed around by some people” and he “got scared”. When he got the impression that the victim was coming towards him aggressively, he hit him on the head with a beer bottle. He says the bottle shattered, although he did not grasp the full extent of the victim’s injuries until he saw the photos of the victim.

[4] He then says he left the party in shock, upset by what he had done. He subsequently heard that the police were speaking to a friend of his who was involved in the fight and that his friend was going to be charged with the offence. Mr Lynskey-Reid decided to tell the police what had happened and he subsequently made an appointment with the police and gave a full interview confessing to his involvement.

Legal principles applying on appeal of a refusal to grant a discharge without conviction

[5] The procedure for discharges without conviction is governed by ss 106 and

107 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act). The relevant parts of s 106 of the Act provide:

106 Discharge without conviction

(1) If a person who is charged with an offence is found guilty or pleads guilty, the court may discharge the offender without conviction, unless by any enactment applicable to the offence the court is required to impose a minimum sentence.

(2) A discharge under this section is deemed to be an acquittal. (3) A court discharging an offender under this…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lynskey-Reid v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NZHC 1991
Decision Date: 25 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jackson Phillip Lynskey-Reid appeals against the District Court decision to deny him a discharge without conviction for a charge of wounding with intent to injure. The District Court instead sentenced him to five months' community detention and ordered him to pay $10,000 to the victim as reparation for emotional harm. On 12 September 2015, Lynskey-Reid attended a university students' party and got involved in a fight. The victim intervened and was struck by Lynskey-Reid with a bottle, causing a deep wound to the back of the victim's head. Lynskey-Reid turned himself in to the police and made a full confession. The appeal hinges on whether the District Court was correct to refuse a discharge without conviction. The legal principles governing discharges without conviction are set out in sections 106 and 107 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The court must first determine the gravity of the offending, then the consequences of conviction, and finally whether the consequences are out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. The District Court found the offending to be moderately serious and that the consequences of conviction, though significant, were not out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. In reviewing the District Court's decision, the High Court found that all relevant factors had been properly considered and came to the same conclusion. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders