Morrison v Crown Law Office - [2016] NZHC 534

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-409-000133 [2016] NZHC 534

BETWEEN
SAMUEL JAMES MORRISON

Appellant

AND

CROWN LAW OFFICE Respondent

Hearing: 15 March 2016

Appearances:

A McCormick for the Appellant
A C Trinder for the Crown

Judgment:

24 March 2016

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Introduction

[1] On 25 August 2015, Mr Morrison appeared at night in the bedroom of a former girlfriend. He had a sawn-off shotgun. When asked why he was there, he said he intended to kill her. The victim talked to him and calmed him down. She ended up driving him away from the house. Mr Morrison pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated burglary. He appeals his sentence of five years and two months’ imprisonment.1

The offending

[2] On the evening of 25 August 2015, the victim was asleep at her home address. She had previously been involved in a brief relationship with Mr Morrison but had remained in contact with him. Mr Morrison drove his vehicle to her house
and parked about one kilometre away in the adjoining street. He was dressed in

1 R v Morrison [2015] NZDC 23431.

MORRISON v CROWN LAW OFFICE [2016] NZHC 534 [24 March 2016]

black track pants and a black hoodie and had a sawn-off single barrel pump action shotgun. Mr Morrison told the Police the shotgun was not loaded (there was no evidence to contradict this). He had a box of shotgun cartridges in the front pocket of his hoodie.

[3] He entered the victim’s house through an unlocked rear door. The victim’s dog was sleeping in the lounge and barked a couple of times. This woke the victim who was asleep in her bedroom. A short time after the dog barked, her bedroom light was switched on.

[4] Mr Morrison was standing in the doorway. When she asked what he was

doing there, he said, “I’ve come to kill you”.

[5] The victim was disbelieving and asked if he was serious. Mr Morrison lifted the gun up to his right hand from where he had been holding it down by his side by his leg and said, “I wouldn’t be standing here with a sawn-off shotgun in the middle of the night if I wasn’t serious.” The victim recognised the weapon he was holding as an actual shotgun.

[6] Over a period of time the victim spoke to Mr Morrison and calmed the situation down. Mr Morrison decided not to carry out the purpose for which he had gone to the house. Mr Morrison spoke about the difficult position he was now in as he did not want to hurt her but he was worried she would call the police. He also spoke about killing her dog and then shooting himself.

[7] After a period of conversation between them, Mr Morrison asked the victim if she could drive him to his car, which she agreed to and did.

[8] The victim went to the Police the following morning. Mr Morrison was spoken to…

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 Morrison v Crown Law Office

Details

AGLC: Morrison v Crown Law Office [2016] NZHC 534
Case: [2016] NZHC 534
Decision Date: 24 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Morrison v Crown Law Office was an appeal against sentence heard in the High Court of New Zealand. The appellant, Mr Morrison, pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated burglary. He appealed his sentence of five years and two months’ imprisonment. The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the starting point was appropriate.

The court found that the starting point was too high and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that the starting point adopted by the sentencing Judge was not appropriate because it did not take into account the personally aggravating factors. The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive because it did not take into account the particular circumstances of the case. The court found that an appropriate starting point should have been five years and nine months’ imprisonment. The court allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentence, and substituted a sentence of four years’ imprisonment.

Orders