Morgan v The King - [2024] NZHC 244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI 2024-463-0004

[2024] NZHC 244

BETWEEN
JOHN ANDREW MORGAN

Appellant

AND

THE CROWN

Respondent

Hearing: 19 February 2024

Appearances:

N Hartigan for the appellant P Patanasiri for the Crown

Judgment:

20 February 2024

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

[Appeal against Sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 February 2024 at 4.00 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

MORGAN v THE CROWN [2024] NZHC 244 [20 February 2024]

Introduction

[1] Mr Morgan pleaded guilty to charges of wounding with intent to injure, possession of an offensive weapon, intimidation (x2), unlawfully carrying an imitation firearm, offering to supply methamphetamine (representative), and supplying methamphetamine (representative). On 1 December 2023, Judge T R Ingram sentenced Mr Morgan to three years and seven months’ imprisonment.1 Mr Morgan appeals his sentence.

The offending

[2] The lead offence was that of wounding with intent to injure. I will describe that in a little detail and then briefly summarise the other offending.

Wounding with intent to injure

[3] The primary victim of the offending, Alex Mowbray, had been close friends with Cody Ringrose. Mr Mowbray then formed a close friendship with Mr Ringrose’s ex-girlfriend. This led to animosity between Mr Mowbray and Mr Ringrose.

[4] In the weeks leading up to the offending, Mr Morgan sent Mr Mowbray a photograph by mobile phone. It showed Mr Morgan pointing a rifle at the camera along with a threatening message.

[5] At about 8.30 pm on 18 March 2023, Mr Mowbray and two other complainants were at Mr Ringrose’s home. Mr Mowbray had gone there to speak to Mr Ringrose. While they were speaking, Mr Morgan arrived. He immediately approached Mr Mowbray in an aggressive manner and asked him if he wanted a fight. He then punched Mr Mowbray eight to nine times to his abdomen, ribs, head, and neck. Mr Mowbray tried to back away. Mr Morgan then picked up a wooden stool and struck Mr Mowbray multiple times to the head. Mr Mowbray raised his arms above his head in an attempt to protect himself.

1 R v Morgan [2023] NZDC 26822.

[6] Mr Morgan then ran into the kitchen, grabbed a small knife off the bench and ran back to Mr Mowbray. Mr Morgan attempted to stab Mr Mowbray in his abdomen, but Mr Mowbray was able to defend himself with his hand. Mr Morgan then successfully stabbed Mr Mowbray with the knife just above his navel. Mr Morgan then shook Mr Ringrose’s hand and left.

[7] Mr Mowbray managed to walk home and was then taken to hospital. He needed surgery for a laceration to his abdominal wall. He also had a black eye.

Other offending

[8] On 8 March 2023, Mr Morgan sent a video message to an associate. The video depicted Mr Morgan driving a car and showing a sum of money, claiming it was
$20,000. It then depicted him grabbing a black handgun from his lap, pointing…

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 Morgan v The King

Details

AGLC: Morgan v The King [2024] NZHC 244
Case: [2024] NZHC 244
Decision Date: 20 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr John Andrew Morgan appealed against his sentence, which was imposed by Judge T R Ingram following his guilty pleas to multiple charges. These included wounding with intent to injure, possession of an offensive weapon, intimidation, unlawfully carrying an imitation firearm, offering to supply methamphetamine, and supplying methamphetamine. The court heard arguments from Ms N Hartigan for the appellant and Ms P Patanasiri for the Crown. The appeal was dismissed by Campbell J.The appeal centred on whether Judge Ingram erred in several aspects of his sentencing. Ms Hartigan argued that the starting point for the wounding with intent to injure charge was excessive, the credit for Morgan's background and addiction issues was insufficient, a credit for rehabilitative prospects should have been given, and a full 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea should have been allowed. She contended that these errors resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence.Campbell J disagreed with the starting point for the wounding with intent to injure charge. Although the court agreed with Judge Ingram that the offending fell within band three of Nuku, the court found that the starting point should have been no higher than three and a half years' imprisonment, not four years. The court also disagreed with Ms Hartigan's submissions regarding credits for background, remorse, and rehabilitative prospects, and upheld Judge Ingram's 20 per cent credit for the guilty plea. Consequently, the court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The end sentence would have been three years and five months' imprisonment, only two months less than the sentence imposed by Judge Ingram.

Orders