Murray v Police - [2020] NZHC 3468

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-463-000136

[2020] NZHC 3468

BETWEEN
DANIEL WAYNE MURRAY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 15 December 2020 (Heard at Tauranga)

Appearances:

Gerard Walsh for the Appellant Oliver Salt for the Respondent

Judgment:

21 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 December 2020 at 12:30 pm.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar Date:

MURRAY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 3468 [21 December 2020]

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against sentence. On 13 November 2020, the appellant, Daniel Murray, and his co-offenders, appeared for sentence before Judge T R Ingram in the District Court at Tauranga. He was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment on one charge of burglary.1 He appeals against sentence as being manifestly excessive.

Factual background

[2] Mr Murray and his co-offenders, Harley Morehu and Kane Phillips, are all members of the Hauraki Killer Beez gang. Mr Morehu is said to be the captain and Mr Murray is said to be second-in-command. It is claimed there is “bad blood” between Mr Morehu and the victim in this case, Glen Williams. The victim had apparently accused Mr Morehu of providing methamphetamine to his ex-partner.

[3] On 31 October 2018, Mr Murray and his co-offenders travelled to an address in Paeroa seeking out Mr Williams. Mr Morehu travelled in his own car accompanied by members of the Killer Beez. Mr Murray, Mr Phillips and another man, Christopher Taukiri, drove there in Mr Murray’s car. Mr Phillips was in possession of a pump- action shotgun.

[4] At the time, Mr Williams was in a shed at the back of his property. He saw Mr Murray and his co-offenders arrive. Mr Williams told one of his associates to get his .22 firearm for protection.

[5] Mr Morehu, backed up by Mr Murray, Mr Phillips and Mr Taukiri, went into the property (but not the home) and confronted Mr Williams. He said he wanted to fight Mr Williams. The occupants of the address told the men to leave. The victim’s son, Kahn Williams, who was in the house at the time, saw what was going on. He armed himself with a .303 firearm. He went outside and fired a shot to scare the intruders off. Most of those present withdrew, but Mr Morehu and Mr Taukiri continued to threaten, taunt and intimidate Mr Williams.

1 R v Murray [2020] NZDC 23722

[6] Then, Mr Phillips went back to the car to retrieve the pump-action shotgun from Mr Murray’s car. He then advanced carrying the gun. Kahn Williams fired a second warning shot. Mr Phillips continued to advance. An associate of Mr Williams took the .22 rifle and fired at the men. Mr Morehu was hit several times. He received non-life threatening injuries. Mr Morehu retreated back to his vehicle and left. Mr Murray entered his car with his co-offenders. Kahn fired a third shot, which hit the…

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 Murray v Police

Details

AGLC: Murray v Police [2020] NZHC 3468
Case: [2020] NZHC 3468
Decision Date: 21 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Daniel Murray, a member of the Hauraki Killer Beez gang, appeals against the sentence he received for his involvement in a burglary. Murray and his co-offenders targeted the property of Glen Williams in Paeroa. Murray and his co-offenders confronted Williams, who armed himself and fired warning shots. Murray was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment by the District Court, a sentence he claims is manifestly excessive. Murray argues that the starting point for his sentence was too high, that insufficient credit was given for the time he spent on electronic monitoring bail, for the matters outlined in his cultural report, and that home detention should have been imposed instead of imprisonment.

The court found that the starting point of three years' imprisonment was within range, despite the appellant's argument that it was too high. The court did, however, find that the three-month discount for the time spent on electronic monitoring bail was insufficient, and that a six-month discount was appropriate. The court found that the 10% discount for cultural matters was appropriate, and that home detention was not suitable in this case, given the circumstances of the offending. Although there was an error in the sentence imposed, the appeal was dismissed as no different sentence should be substituted. The result was that no adjustment was warranted, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders