JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AMr Pritchard’s appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of preventive detention imposed in the High Court is quashed and replaced with a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years.
BMr Edmonds’ appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

_______________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by O’Regan P)
Introduction
[1]        Mr Pritchard and Mr Edmonds were convicted after a High Court jury trial of one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The trial Judge, Ronald Young J, sentenced both of them to preventive detention.[1] Mr Pritchard appeals against sentence and Mr Edmonds appeals against conviction and sentence.
[1]      R v Pritchard HC Wellington CRI-2008-020-2387, 6 November 2009;
R v Edmonds HC Wellington CRI-2008-020-2387, 6 November 2009.
[2]        Mr Edmonds’ appeal against conviction was advanced on the following grounds:
(a)the identification evidence of a Crown witness, Mr Biddle, should not have been admitted;
(b)the trial Judge erred in allowing the Crown to re-examine the victim about persons who were present at the scene of the offence;
(c)mis-directions by the trial Judge on the burden of proof and in relation to the caution about identification evidence required under s 126 of the Evidence Act 2006.

[3]        The ground of appeal against sentence was stated in the notice of appeal as being that preventive detention was not the least restrictive sentencing outcome and was accordingly manifestly excessive.
[4]        Mr Pritchard’s appeal against sentence was advanced on the basis that the sentence of preventive detention was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle.
Factual background
[5]        The factual background was summarised by the Judge in his sentencing notes for Mr Edmonds as follows:
[1]         Mr Edmonds you are for sentence today having been convicted by a jury of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Somehow Mr August, on the evening of 8 June 2008, came to be at the Mongrel Mob headquarters in Hastings. It was clear he was grossly intoxicated and it is clear to me he was doing no harm to anybody.
[2]         Suddenly he was struck and knocked to the ground. You and your co-accused, Mr Pritchard, immediately arrived and began kicking him in the head and the body. It is hard to know how many times you both kicked him but Mr Biddle’s evidence which was clearly credible and reliable said it was between twenty to fifty times.
[3]         The victim was very seriously injured. One of the witnesses took the victim to the hospital. He was immediately admitted to intensive care. He was in very serious…

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 Pritchard v R

Details

AGLC: Pritchard v R [2010] NZCA 403
Case: [2010] NZCA 403
Decision Date: 3 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard appeals from Joseph Rikki Pritchard and Patrick Shaun Edmonds against their convictions and sentences for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Pritchard appealed solely on the grounds that his sentence of preventive detention was manifestly excessive, while Edmonds appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The appeals were heard together, and judgment was delivered by O'Regan P, with Arnold and Randerson JJ concurring.

Edmonds' appeal against conviction was based on the admissibility of identification evidence, the trial Judge's decision to allow re-examination of the victim, and alleged misdirections concerning the burden of proof and identification evidence. Pritchard's appeal against sentence argued that preventive detention was not the least restrictive sentencing outcome and was wrong in principle.

The court dismissed Edmonds' appeal against conviction, upholding the trial Judge's findings on the admissibility of identification evidence and finding no miscarriage of justice in the trial Judge's directions on the burden of proof and identification evidence. The court also dismissed Edmonds' appeal against sentence, finding that preventive detention was the appropriate sentence given the nature of the offending, Edmonds' previous record, and the reports provided to the Judge.

The court allowed Pritchard's appeal against sentence, finding that the Judge was wrong not to impose a lengthy determinate sentence in his case. The court replaced the sentence of preventive detention with a sentence of nine years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years. This decision was based on the factors under s 87(4) of the Sentencing Act, including the pattern of serious offending disclosed by the offender's history, the seriousness of the harm to the community caused by the offending, and the principle that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable if it provides adequate protection for society. The court found that Pritchard's failure to cooperate with report writers was a matter of concern but believed that the benefit of participating in rehabilitative programmes would provide an incentive for him to do so.

Orders