Legal Research
Cases
M v The King

M v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 3632 2 December 2024

Kidnapping

Strangulation

Aggravated Violence

Detention Against Will

Psychological Harm

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: DISTRICT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESS/VICTIM/CONNECTED PERSON(S) PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 REMAINS IN FORCE.

NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2024-425-000048 [2024] NZHC 3632

BETWEEN
M

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Defendant

Hearing: 28 November 2024

Counsel:

P K Noorland for Appellant M J Thomas for Respondent

Judgment:

2 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

(Appeal against sentence)

[1] Mr M kidnapped his former partner when she ended their relationship. He detained her in his car while driving a long distance over many hours, forcing her to remain in the car when she tried to escape, including by strangling her on two occasions, and compelling her to take MDMA. The next day he assaulted her while preventing her taking back a bag of belongings, and in the days that followed used a bank card from her bag to spend $3,000 of her money.

M v R [2024] NZHC 3632 [2 December 2024]

[2] Mr M appeals against a sentence of three years’ imprisonment for this offending.1 The sentence was imposed on charges of kidnapping;2 a representative charge of strangulation;3 male assaults female;4 a representative charge of dishonestly using a document;5 and possession of cannabis.6

[3] The appellant contends that the starting point of four years imprisonment was too high resulting in a manifestly excessive end sentence.

The offending

[4] The facts of the appellant’s offending are set out in the decision under appeal as follows:
[3] You and the complainant were in a relationship for close to two years. I am told that there are no children. From about August 2022 until February 2023 you were residing together with her parents at an address in Tuatapere.

[4] On 7 February last year she informed you that she wished to end the relationship. She told you that she planned to go away with a friend for the weekend to have a break. You did not take this information well. You did not want the relationship to end.

[5] On 10 February at about 8 pm she was at home when you and three of your friends arrived at the address. Her father was at home and he invited your friends inside. She spoke to you whilst you were in your vehicle about messages that you had read on her phone. She was invited to go with you and your friends that evening. Apparently she agreed because you, your friends, and the complainant travelled to a local bar in your motor vehicle.

[6] At the bar you told her to go and get some drinks and she obliged. You, your friends, and she were in the smoker’s area of the bar and at the bar you continued to ask her to talk about…

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 M v The King

Details

AGLC: M v The King [2024] NZHC 3632
Case: [2024] NZHC 3632
Decision Date: 2 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Invercargill Registry, considered an appeal by Mr M against his sentence for kidnapping, strangulation, assault, dishonest use of a bank card, and possession of cannabis. Mr M kidnapped his former partner, detained her in his car over many hours, strangled her twice, compelled her to take MDMA, assaulted her, and used her bank card without permission. The District Court imposed a sentence of three years’ imprisonment, which Mr M appealed as manifestly excessive. The Court assessed the appeal to determine if there was a material error in the sentence and whether a different sentence should be imposed. The Court examined the starting point of four years’ imprisonment for kidnapping, considering it appropriate given the serious nature of the offending, including the strangulation incidents. The Court reviewed relevant authorities and concluded that a starting point of four years was within range. Considering the strangulation as a significant feature, the Court found the end sentence of three years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders