Police v Kendall - [2012] NZHC 2908

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-054-1537 [2012] NZHC 2908

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

v

EVAN MARK KENDALL

Counsel: A M Read for Crown
F D Steedman for Prisoner

Sentencing: 5 November 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF WILLIAMS J

[1] Evan Kendall you appear for sentencing on the serious charge of attempted murder. I am going to run through the facts as I understand them and make an assessment of the seriousness of your offending in order to establish a starting point, talk a little bit about you to decide whether I will make any deductions from that starting point, and then pass sentence finally.

[2] So this story ends, in a sense, with a sad incident that occurred on Sunday,

19 August this year. You were together with (what is described in the summary of facts), as your partner – certainly someone with whom you had a personal relationship and had had for nearly two years by that date.

[3] It appears that the relationship was not a smooth one. It was full of conflict. It had coping issues attached to it. It appears there was drinking. For whatever
reasons anyway, this was a conflictual relationship, and on 19 August this year you

NEW ZEALAND POLICE V EVAN MARK KENDALL HC PMN CRI-2012-054-1537 [5 November 2012]

were at her home having failed to find (for yourself) somewhere to live. You argued

– primarily over you not getting your own place.

[4] Your partner buys a cask of wine from the supermarket. You appear at least at that stage, to be enjoying each other’s company, you play a board game – she’s drinking, you’re not.

[5] An argument develops over a tiny thing – literally – ants on the bench. You take a pocket knife with a 6 cm blade that you always carry apparently and in the context of that argument you cut the wine bladder open spilling the contents. A bigger argument develops over that. It appears from the summary of facts, that you both become upset by the argument – you were both crying. Your partner tries to catch a taxi to go and buy a replacement cask and you ring and cancel it.

[6] Anyway, there is a disagreement then over whether she can borrow your coat to go out because it is raining outside, and that is where things degenerate into tragedy. You punch her twice in the head so hard and with such effect that she thinks you had broken her nose. Then you are on top of her banging her head against the floor bruising both shoulders. That was a point at which perhaps a stop could have been called but it wasn’t. You later say to the police that at that point you “lose it”.

[7] You run around locking every door and window in the house. And you light a fire downstairs – in the house. Your intention you say, although you don’t recall whether you say it out…

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 Police v Kendall

Details

AGLC: Police v Kendall [2012] NZHC 2908
Case: [2012] NZHC 2908
Decision Date: 5 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of New Zealand Police v Evan Mark Kendall involved the sentencing of Kendall on the serious charge of attempted murder. The central issue was the gravity of the offence and the appropriate sentence considering the offender's background and circumstances. The court had to determine the appropriate starting point for the sentence, any deductions to be made, and the final sentence to be imposed. Additionally, the court needed to decide on the imposition of a protection order against the offender and whether to issue a formal three strikes warning.

The court detailed the facts of the offence, which involved a sustained and violent attack on Kendall's partner over a period of time. The violence included punching, beating, and stabbing the victim, with the offender intending to kill both himself and the victim. The court highlighted the seriousness of the injuries inflicted and the lasting impact on the victim. The offender had multiple opportunities to stop the attack but did not, leading to a premeditated and deliberate assault. The court emphasised the need to denounce the act, deter similar behaviour, protect the victim and the community, and hold the offender accountable.

Williams J sentenced Kendall to four years' imprisonment, starting with a baseline of seven years but reducing it by three years considering his early guilty plea, acceptance of responsibility, and certain mitigating factors such as his lack of a criminal history prior to this offence, his lack of mental illness, and his social isolation and difficulty in forming meaningful bonds with others. The court also imposed a protection order preventing Kendall from contacting the victim again and issued a formal three strikes warning, indicating the severe consequences of any future serious violent offences.

Orders