Mark v R

In this case, Riingi Puni Mark appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Mark was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm after she stabbed her partner multiple times during an altercation. Mark sought to adduce new evidence that she had acted in self-defence, as her partner had attacked her. The Crown argued that Mark's new evidence was not credible, was not fresh and would not have affected the sentence imposed. The Court of Appeal allowed Mark's appeal against sentence, granted leave to adduce new evidence, quashed the sentence and remitted the case back to the District Court for re-sentencing. The Court found that Mark's new evidence was credible and consistent with the history of abuse in her relationship with her partner. The Court concluded that had the sentencing judge been aware of Mark's new account of events, she may have treated Mark's actions as "excessive self-defence" and reduced the sentence. The Court noted that the new evidence did not undermine the safety of Mark's conviction, but rather highlighted mitigating factors that should have been considered by the sentencing judge. The Court stressed that defendants should not be encouraged to advance conflicting accounts at trial and sentencing.