Parsons v Police - [2018] NZHC 2214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2018-412-19

[2018] NZHC 2214

BETWEEN
NIKORA RUA PARSONS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 24 August 2018

Appearances:

B Kilkelly for Appellant R Smith for Crown

Judgment:

24 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] The appellant, Nikora Parsons, was sentenced to an effective term of imprisonment of two years and three months by Judge Crosbie on three charges of male assaults female and for other less serious offending. Mr Parsons appeals that sentence on the basis it was manifestly excessive.

Background

The first assault

[2] On the evening of 11 July last year, Mr Parsons’ partner was asleep in her bed. Mr Parsons woke her up. She wanted to sleep and told him to leave her alone. Mr Parsons became angry and began verbally abusing her. At that point, the victim got up and told Mr Parsons that their relationship was over. Mr Parsons shoved her in the chest using both hands, causing her to fall backwards. When she got back up, Mr Parsons punched her on the jaw, causing her to fall back against a wall. Upon regaining her balance, she picked up her car keys and went to leave.

PARSONS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 2214 [24 August 2018]

[3] At that point, Mr Parsons grabbed hold of the victim’s arm, causing her to drop the keys. She ran from the room to the lounge where a friend was sleeping. After Mr Parsons had left the bedroom, the victim went back to get the car keys. As she walked back out of that room, Mr Parsons again punched her in the face, connecting with her nose and mouth. This knocked her to the floor. He picked her up by the waist, saying he was sorry.

[4] The victim suffered bruising to her left eye, jaw and both her arms, and grazing to her eyebrow and neck. Her jaw and nose were extremely sore.

Second assault

[5] On 18 August, Mr Parsons and the victim were together on a public street. An argument developed about money which became heated. The victim fell to the ground as they struggled over an EFTPOS card. When the victim got up off the ground, Mr Parsons punched her once in the head with a closed fist, causing her to fall back to the ground. After she got up, she continued walking along the street with Mr Parsons. She was not injured.

Third assault

[6] Four days later, the victim accompanied Mr Parsons on a trip to Wanaka. On the way back to Dunedin, they stayed the night in Lawrence. The next day, they went to the Information Centre to use the Wi-Fi. There was a verbal altercation that escalated into violence. Mr Parsons was initially struck by the victim. He retaliated by pinning her against a wall and repeatedly striking her with a closed fist. After she managed to break free, she sought…

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 Parsons v Police

Details

AGLC: Parsons v Police [2018] NZHC 2214
Case: [2018] NZHC 2214
Decision Date: 24 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Nikora Parsons, appeals the sentence imposed on him by the District Court for three charges of male assaults female, and other related offences. The appeal focuses on whether the sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. Parsons' appeal is based on four grounds: the starting point for the lead charges was too high, the sentencing judge did not properly consider the principle of totality when imposing uplifts, an inadequate discount was applied for his guilty pleas, and insufficient credit was given for positive aspects of the restorative justice process and his expressions of remorse. The Crown argues that the sentence was within the appropriate range and not manifestly excessive. The court examined the starting point and uplifts, and found that the sentence was consistent with other cases involving similar offending. The court also considered the discounts applied and concluded that while a greater discount could have been applied, the sentence as a whole was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

Final orders: The appeal is dismissed.

Orders