Ogle v The King - [2024] NZHC 2228

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2024-488-000035

[2024] NZHC 2228

BETWEEN
AARON CHARLES FREDERICK OGLE

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 8 August 2024

Counsel:

S Thode for Appellant

CHB Megala for Respondent

Judgment:

12 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 12 August 2024 at 11 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Whangārei. Thode Utting, Auckland.

OGLE v R [2024] NZHC 2228 [12 August 2024]

The appeal

[1] Aaron Ogle appeals his sentence of two years and five months’ imprisonment in relation to offences of family violence, including strangulation.1 The appeal must be allowed if there is an error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed,2 or in short, if the sentence is manifestly excessive.3

Background

[2] Mr Ogle pleaded guilty to three charges of assault on a person in a family relationship;4 two charges of strangulation;5 and one each of assault with a weapon;6 wilful damage;7 and assault with intent to injure.8

[3] Mr Ogle’s offending was summarised by Judge T Bayley at sentencing. I gratefully adopt the Judge’s summary:9
Your offending occurred on three occasions described as incidents 1, 2 and 3 in the Crown summary of facts. The victim of your offending is your former partner and at the time of your offending in 2022, you had been in a relationship with her for two years.

I turn to the first episode of the offending described as incident 1. On 28 April 2022 after an evening of drinking while in the car with the victim, in derogatory terms towards the victim, you accused her of being unfaithful. At that time the victim bit your nose. You responded by grabbing the victim around her neck and squeezing, pushing her back into the seat. During that time, the victim could not breathe for approximately 10 seconds. You then grabbed the back of the victim’s head with your hands and forced her head down towards the footwell of the vehicle preventing her from moving.

A short time later, you drove the victim towards her home address in Hikurangi but deliberately missed the turn-off. She became concerned about where you were taking her. She pushed your face out of frustration. In response, you hit the victim to the right cheek with your left hand using a closed fist. As a result of that series of assaults, the victim suffered a black eye and bruising on her face, legs and arms.

1      R v Ogle [2024] NZDC 9543.
2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
3      Tutukangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 194A; maximum penalty, two years’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act, s 189A(b); maximum penalty, seven years’ imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act, s 202C(1)(a); maximum penalty, five years’ imprisonment.
7      Crimes Act, s 269(2); maximum penalty, seven years’ imprisonment.
8      Crimes Act, s 193; maximum penalty, three years’ imprisonment.
9

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 Ogle v The King

Details

AGLC: Ogle v The King [2024] NZHC 2228
Case: [2024] NZHC 2228
Decision Date: 12 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aaron Ogle appeals against his sentence of two years and five months' imprisonment for multiple offences of family violence, including strangulation. The appeal hinges on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or an error in judicial discretion. The court examined the nature of the offences, which involved severe physical and psychological abuse over multiple incidents, and the sentence imposed by the sentencing Judge, which was determined to be appropriate given the gravity of the offences. The appeal court found that the starting point of six years was justifiable, considering the severity of the incidents, particularly the third incident which involved prolonged and severe violence. The court also considered the various discounts applied by the sentencing Judge, including those for Ogle's guilty pleas, personal circumstances, and efforts towards rehabilitation, concluding that these were appropriately balanced against the need for denunciation and deterrence. The appeal court ultimately found no error in the sentence and dismissed the appeal. Consequently, Ogle's bail is rescinded, and he is required to surrender to the Whangarei District Court.

Orders