Tyrone Palmer appeals his sentence of 22 months imprisonment for the manslaughter, on 9 April 2016 at Invercargill, of Matthew Coley.[1] He says that he ought to have been sentenced instead to home detention.
This was a regrettably familiar offence; a one-punch manslaughter in which the victim was felled by an unexpected punch to the head and landed heavily on the ground, suffering predictable traumatic brain injury that led to his death.
The summary of facts on which Mr Palmer pleaded guilty recorded that he had attended a party at which he took LSD and cannabis. He has also admitted that he took alcohol. He then went with associates to the inner city, where he behaved aggressively towards a man who had had an altercation with one of Mr Palmer’s female associates. That incident ended when the other man ran off, fearing that Mr Palmer meant to attack him.
Mr Palmer and his associates then encountered Mr Coley, who was intoxicated but not aggressive. Mr Coley was in an altercation with Mr Palmer’s female associates, following which Mr Coley left the area. He was followed by the females, who confronted him at a convenience store. Mr Coley tried to calm the situation and leave, but Mr Palmer and his associates surrounded him. One of the females punched Mr Coley. Mr Palmer then punched him once in the head, with considerable force. Shortly afterwards he described it as a king hit. Mr Coley did not see it coming. He had his hands by his sides at the time. He fell back, striking his head. Mr Palmer fled the scene, and when apprehended he claimed to have acted in self-defence.
Mr Coley died several days later from an acute subdural haemorrhage.
Personal circumstances
Mr Palmer was 16 at the time of the killing. He was raised in a supportive family environment, but he has low intelligence (his IQ score is 81) and as a child he exhibited hyperactivity, impulsivity and poor social skills. The diagnosis is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. At secondary school he achieved poorly and was disruptive. He was interested in sport, which provided him with structured routines, but he gave that up as he grew older, preferring to socialise with friends. He began using alcohol and cannabis at about 13.
At school Mr Palmer experienced significant bullying, and it appears that he learned to handle this by resorting quickly…
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 Palmer v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Palmer v R [2016] NZCA 541
Case
[2016] NZCA 541
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Tyrone Palmer appeals his sentence of 22 months imprisonment for the manslaughter of Matthew Coley, who was killed after Palmer punched him in the head. Palmer argues that he ought to have been sentenced to home detention instead. The appeal raises questions about the appropriate sentence for such an offence, the purposes of sentencing, and the relative merits of home detention and imprisonment.
The appeal raises questions about the appropriate sentence for manslaughter by an unlawful act, the purposes of sentencing, and the relative merits of home detention and imprisonment. The sentencing judge adopted a starting point of four years imprisonment, but then reduced this to 22 months after taking into account personal mitigating factors such as Palmer's youth, remorse, and guilty plea. The sentencing judge refused to substitute a term of home detention, reasoning that it would not adequately meet the need for deterrence and denunciation, or promote a sense of responsibility in Palmer. The appeal is concerned with whether the sentencing judge erred in exercising his discretion.
The Court's reasoning was that the Judge did not err in refusing to substitute a term of home detention for imprisonment. The Court was not persuaded that the sentence was plainly excessive in the circumstances, for several reasons. The Court considered the highly culpable nature of the offending, the importance of denunciation and general deterrence, and the need for personal deterrence. The Court also considered the importance of rehabilitation, but concluded that the short custodial sentence was not likely to have an irreversible effect on Palmer's rehabilitation, and that it had useful rehabilitative features such as breaking the cycle of bad friendships and substance abuse. The Court concluded that home detention was not an appropriate sentence in the circumstances.
The Court allowed the appeal, but sustained the sentence of 22 months imprisonment. The Court imposed post-release conditions which are necessary for rehabilitative purposes, and which allow the probation officer to put a structured programme in place, building on work done while Palmer is in custody.