Maney v R - [2018] NZCA 193

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA146/2018
[2018] NZCA 193

BETWEEN	JASON REX THOMAS MANEY Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA144/2018
BETWEEN	MATIRA DEBORAH MANEY Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	15 May 2018
Court:	Miller, Ellis and Woolford JJ
Counsel:	N M Dutch for Appellant (CA146/2017) W T Nabney for Appellant (CA144/2018) E J Hoskin for Respondent
Judgment:	14 June 2018 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeals against sentence are allowed.
BMr Maney’s sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment is quashed. A sentence of two years’ imprisonment is substituted.
CMs Maney’s sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment is quashed. A sentence of two years’ imprisonment is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellis J)

On 9 March 2018, Jason Maney and his mother, Matira Maney, were each sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment on single charges of conspiring to pervert the course of justice.[1] They both now appeal their sentences.

Background

[1]R v Maney [2018] NZDC 4520.

On 23 August 2016, Jason Maney was arrested on charges of assault and threatening to kill, relating to events that occurred the previous day. The complainant was John Nuttall, who is the father of Ms Maney’s partner, Tai Nuttall.
While in custody awaiting trial on the violence charges, Mr Maney had a number of telephone conversations with his mother. These were, of course, recorded. The pair discussed Ms Maney prevailing upon Tai Nuttall to persuade his father to change his evidence about the events giving rise to the charges Mr Maney was facing. Tai Nuttall was also in jail at this time.
In one of these (quite lengthy) conversations Ms Maney said “well I’m gonna see Tai tomorrow and I’m gonna tell Tai you tell your father to tell them it was a dispute, an argument, a heated argument”. Mr Maney is then recorded as telling his mother to “say there was no hands on or nothing and there was no threatening to kill”. Ms Maney then reiterated:
I’m going to see Tai tomorrow and you tell your father it was a dispute; there was a fucken argument. It was a heated moment, … he didn't hurt me or anything like that.
And Mr Maney said:
that’s all the old fool has to say, a heated dispute. There was no touching, choking and all that. He doesn't know why he said that. He was pissed off at the time. I'll be home in two weeks.
And later, Mr Maney said:
I’ll ring tomorrow to make sure everything is confirmed. There was no physical touch. The old cunt better be on straight up or I’ll be getting out with revenge. Straight up, I wanna be a good man when I get out not an angry man.
In a phone call the following day Ms Maney confirmed “I know what to say” and later she reiterated, “I’ll get Tai to coach him 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 Maney v R

Details

AGLC: Maney v The Queen [2018] NZCA 193
Case: [2018] NZCA 193
Decision Date: 14 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellants, Jason Rex Thomas Maney and his mother, Matira Deborah Maney, appealed their sentences, which were imposed by the District Court. The Maneys were each convicted on a single charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice and sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment. The appeal concerned the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The Maneys' counsel submitted that the District Court Judge had applied the wrong starting point for their sentencing, and that the resulting sentences were excessive. The Crown argued that the sentences were within the appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal found that the District Court Judge had applied an inappropriate starting point for the Maneys’ sentencing. The Court found that the starting point of two years and three months was too high and did not reflect the Maneys' culpability or the fact that the planned interference had not come to fruition. The Court found that the sentences imposed were excessive and quashed the sentences, substituting sentences of two years’ imprisonment. The Court agreed with the sentencing Judge and the appellants’ counsel that a non-custodial sentence was not appropriate in this case.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, quashed the sentences imposed by the District Court, and substituted sentences of two years’ imprisonment for each of the Maneys. The Court held that the sentences imposed by the District Court were excessive and did not reflect the Maneys' culpability or the fact that the planned interference had not come to fruition. The Court found that the starting point applied by the District Court was too high and did not take into account the Maneys' personal circumstances or the fact that the intended outcome of the offending had not been achieved. The Court of Appeal's decision highlights the importance of applying an appropriate starting point for sentencing and taking into account the specific circumstances of each case.

Orders