Mori v Police - [2013] NZHC 225

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2012-409-000112 [2013] NZHC 225

PAMELA JEANETTE MORI
Appellant

v

POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 14 February 2013

Counsel: P N Allan and L Drummond for Appellant
C E Butchard for Respondent

Judgment: 15 February 2013

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

[1] Ms Mori was convicted on 15 November 2012 on one charge of assault with intent to injure under s 193 of the Crimes Act 1961. On the evening of 6 July 2012
Ms Mori and a friend had been out drinking and on their way home made an unprovoked attack on the victim. The victim was a middle aged woman, a stranger to the offenders, and it was late at night. The attack was started by the co-offender but Ms Mori joined in initially hitting the victim in the head and later punching and kicking her until she fell to the ground. The victim was particularly vulnerable having recently had surgery. She suffered extensive bruising and abrasions and was
traumatised by the attack.

MORI V POLICE HC CHCH CRI 2012-409-000112 [15 February 2013]

[2] Judge A A Couch sentenced Ms Mori to six months home detention and 120 hours community work. This is to be compared to the sentence of the co-offender who was sentenced to 75 hours community work.

[3] Ms Mori now appeals against that sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive and out of line with the sentence received by the co-offender.

Notes of sentencing

[4] Judge A A Couch sets out in a careful and detailed way the reasons for his sentence in this matter. He describes the background to the offending and the involvement of Ms Mori in that offending. He observes the vulnerability of the victim and the extensive bruising and abrasions that were suffered by her. He acknowledges the positive aspects to Ms Mori’s background and that she has no previous history of violent offending. He also records that this is a serious offence attracting a maximum penalty of three years. He records that he regards Ms Mori’s culpability to be as great as that of the co-offender and the gravity of the offending is well up the scale. He refers to repeated blows and kicks to the head and face in an unprovoked and serious attack on a vulnerable victim.

[5] The Judge adopted a starting point of 18 months having factored into that the vulnerability of the victim. He took into account a prompt guilty plea and gave Ms Mori full credit for that. He also acknowledged Ms Mori’s remorse. He therefore reduced the starting point by six months which led to a sentence of imprisonment for 12 months. He then examined whether home detention was an appropriate alternative. He cited relevant sentencing principles including holding Ms Mori accountable for the harm done and to promote a sense of acknowledgment and accountability for the harm. He noted it as simply an unacceptable part of our society that people get drunk, lose…

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 Mori v Police

Details

AGLC: Mori v Police [2013] NZHC 225
Case: [2013] NZHC 225
Decision Date: 15 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mori v Police, Ms Mori was convicted of assault with intent to injure under section 193 of the Crimes Act 1961, following an unprovoked attack on a vulnerable woman. Ms Mori and a co-offender assaulted the victim, causing extensive bruising and abrasions. Judge A A Couch sentenced Ms Mori to six months of home detention and 120 hours of community work, which she appealed on the basis that it was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the sentence received by her co-offender. The appeal raised the legal issues of whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether there was a disparity in the sentences imposed on co-offenders.

The Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was based on relevant sentencing guidelines and principles. The Judge had appropriately considered the severity of the injuries and the nature of the offending. The Court also rejected the argument that the Judge had misdirected himself in attributing the injuries to Ms Mori, and that the sentence should have been reduced based on the reference to R v Harris. However, the Court did find that the sentence should have taken into account Ms Mori's significant assistance to the police, for which she had not received proper credit. In light of this, the Court reduced the sentence to four months of home detention. The appeal was allowed on this limited basis.

Orders