Manuel v Police - [2021] NZHC 783

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2021-488-000009

[2021] NZHC 783

BETWEEN
SAMSON THOMAS MANUEL

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Appearances:
S J Ross for the Appellant

S T Patia for the Respondent

Judgment:

12 April 2021

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 April 2021 at 4.30 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

SAMSON THOMAS MANUEL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 783 [12 April 2021]

[1] Mr Manuel pleaded guilty to a charge of injuring with intent to injure.1 He was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.2 Mr Manuel appeals his sentence on the grounds that it is manifestly excessive because the starting point was too high and insufficient credit was given for his guilty plea.

Facts

[2] The facts are taken from the summary of facts to which Mr Manuel pleaded guilty.

[3] On 5 April 2020, Mr Manuel and a younger family member were celebrating Mr Manuel’s 21st birthday at Mr Manuel’s home address. This was during the nationwide Level 4, Covid-19 lockdown.

[4] The pair consumed alcohol. In the early hours of the morning they went for a walk.

[5] As they walked past a neighbour’s house, a verbal altercation took place with occupants of the address. They walked on. They passed the same house on their return home. The verbal altercation started up again.

[6] One of the occupants of the house approached them. He asked them to leave the property. Mr Manuel’s younger family member was knocked over and fell to the ground briefly. Mr Manuel, on seeing this, challenged the occupant to a fight. He struck the victim a number of times to the head, causing him to fall to the ground. The younger family member then produced a knife and wounded the victim by slashing him across his abdomen. A second occupant of the house came to assist. He restrained

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2): carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
2 Mr Manuel was also sentenced on the same day for two unrelated offences to which he pleaded guilty. They were possession of an offensive weapon (knife) under s 202A(4)(a) of the Crimes Act: carrying a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment; and resisting arrest under s 23(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981: carrying a maximum penalty of three month’s imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2000. There is no appeal in respect of the sentence imposed for this offending.

Mr Manuel. The younger family member then stabbed the second occupant in the buttocks with the knife. Police and ambulance were called. Mr Manuel was located at his home. He was extremely agitated and aggressive towards police. He was arrested at the scene.

[7] Materially, Mr Manuel’s assault for which he was sentenced involved only the punches to the head. His victim sustained a fractured eye socket and was treated for concussion.

[8] Mr Manuel also faced two other charges relating to different events.…

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 Manuel v Police

Details

AGLC: Manuel v Police [2021] NZHC 783
Case: [2021] NZHC 783
Decision Date: 12 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Samson Thomas Manuel has appealed his sentence for injuring with intent to injure, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The High Court considered whether the starting point of 24 months was appropriate and whether sufficient credit was given for his guilty plea. The court examined the severity of the injury and the involvement of multiple attackers in the offending. The High Court found that the starting point was too high and substituted an end sentence of one year and two months imprisonment. The court concluded that the appropriate starting point should have been 18 months, and that a composite discount of 25% for the guilty plea and personal factors was appropriate.

This case is a reminder of the importance of carefully considering the appropriate starting point in sentencing and the need to ensure that sufficient credit is given for a guilty plea and personal mitigating factors. The High Court's decision highlights the need for sentencing courts to consider the individual circumstances of each case and to ensure that the sentence imposed is proportionate to the offending. The court also emphasised the importance of considering the impact of mental health issues on offending and the need for appropriate support and treatment for offenders with mental health concerns.

Orders