Martin v The Queen - [2020] NZHC 712

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2020-485-11

[2020] NZHC 712

BETWEEN
WILLIAM ALEXANDER MARTIN

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 1 April 2020 (teleconference)

Counsel:

S J Gill for Appellant

J M Irwin for Respondent

Judgment:

7 April 2020

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1] This appeal was conducted by telephone, each participant joining from a remote location. It was recorded. The appeal was listed on the daily list and the media invited to attend if they wished. None did so.

[2] Mr Martin appeals a sentence of three years eight months’ imprisonment.1 The appeal is of narrow compass focusing only on the amount of credit given for rehabilitative efforts together with matters identified in a report presented under s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

Offending and Sentence

[3] Mr Martin was convicted in relation to two sets of offending. The first occurred on 15 November 2018 and resulted in one charge of male assaults female,2

1 R v Martin [2020] NZDC 1855.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 194; maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.

MARTIN v R [2020] NZHC 712 [7 April 2020]

and one of assault with intent to injure.3 During the course of an argument, Mr Martin grabbed the victim by the collar with both hands and threw her into a wall (male assaults female). As the scuffle continued, he then grabbed her by the throat, restricting her breathing (assault with intent to injure). When the victim broke free of his grip around her neck, he slapped her across her face (this contributed to the male assaults female charge). The victim suffered bruising and abrasions to her neck as a result of the strangulation, and the trauma left her sore, dizzy and nauseous.

[4] The second set of offending occurred while Mr Martin was on bail for the first set of offending, on 25 December 2018, and resulted in the charges of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure,4 one charge of male assaults female,5 and wilful damage.6 Mr Martin went upstairs in the early hours of Christmas morning and began an argument with the victim. He then punched her in the face twice (causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure). As the victim tried to use her phone to call for help, he grabbed and pulled her wrist to get her phone from her, kicked her in the chest and then, once she had stood back up, pushed her in the chest back into the wall (male assaults female). He then left, taking her phone with him and slamming it into the staircase bannister causing the screen to smash (wilful damage). The victim suffered significant fractures to both sides of her jaw as a result, which was operated on and multiple metal plates were inserted to reconnect her jaw. She was hospitalised for a week and the events have caused her great stress.

[5] The stress was aggravated by Mr Martin’s…

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 Martin v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Martin v The Queen [2020] NZHC 712
Case: [2020] NZHC 712
Decision Date: 7 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, William Alexander Martin appealed against his sentence of three years and eight months’ imprisonment. The appeal was focused on the amount of credit given for rehabilitative efforts, and matters identified in a report presented under section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The court had to determine whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the appellant’s rehabilitative efforts and the contents of the section 27 report. The report detailed the appellant’s background, including exposure to domestic abuse, drunkenness, and extreme discipline during his upbringing. Martin’s mother, a secondary school teacher and fluent Māori speaker, supports him but recognises the need for him to change his behaviour and attitudes. Martin completed a drug and alcohol programme run by the Salvation Army and showed good progress in addressing the causes of his addictions.

The court considered the appellant’s rehabilitative efforts and the section 27 report, which explained the personal, whānau, community and cultural background of Martin. The appellant’s counsel emphasised the importance of recognising rehabilitative efforts and the cultural factors highlighted in the section 27 report. The Crown argued that the links between Martin’s upbringing, addictions, and resort to domestic violence did not merit discrete sentencing recognition. The court found that the pattern of behaviours exhibited by Martin displayed clear links to his upbringing, particularly the years before his parents split when he was seven years old. The court agreed with the observations in Zhang v R and concluded that a discount greater than 10% was required. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to three years and four months’ imprisonment.

Orders