R v Abbott - [2013] NZHC 62

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI 2012-020-1489 [2013] NZHC 62

QUEEN

v

IZIAH ROLLY ABBOTT

Hearing: 5 February 2013

Counsel: N M Graham for Crown
E J Forster for Prisoner

Sentence: 5 February 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

Introduction

[1] Iziah Abbott, you have pleaded guilty to, and you appear for sentence on:

(a) One charge of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm;1 and

(b) One charge of aggravated burglary.2

[2] You were charged initially with attempted murder, but were discharged on that count in December, pursuant to s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 189(1), with a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 232(1)(a), with a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

R v ABBOTT HC NAP CRI 2012-020-1489 [5 February 2013]

Details of offending

[3] The circumstances of your offending are as follows. On the morning of Sunday 13 May 2012, you were drinking with associates at an address at Whakatu. You had been drinking the Saturday night prior and drank on into Sunday morning. At about 11.00 am you had an altercation with one of your associates, which caused you to become angry. You were told to leave the address.

[4] You then walked to the victim’s house, which was about 500 metres away. She is a young woman in her twenties. You knew she lived alone at that address. As you approached her house, you picked up a rock the size of a softball. You then knocked on the front door. When the victim opened the door you raised the rock above your shoulder intending to hit the victim on the head with it. The victim raised her arm to block the blow, and the rock fell to the ground.

[5] You then proceeded to push your way into the address and you began attacking the victim. You punched her about the head and face a number of times. She fell to the floor. You then began kicking her about the head. You kicked her face. The victim tried to take shelter under a table in the room. You continued to attack her. Throughout the attack the victim was screaming for help. It seems that this eventually caused you to leave the property.

[6] You then ran back to the party. Your friends told you to hide. You hid at a nearby river for some 30 minutes. Then you went back to the party, and then on to your own home. There you washed your clothes to get rid of the victim’s blood.

[7] In explanation of your offending, you told the police that when you left your associate’s party you were extremely angry and wanted to really hurt someone. You said that you targeted the victim because you knew she lived alone and was the closest person to you at the time at which you could take out your anger.

Impact of offending

[8] The victim…

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 R v Abbott

Details

AGLC: R v Abbott [2013] NZHC 62
Case: [2013] NZHC 62
Decision Date: 5 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Iziah Abbott pleaded guilty to charges of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and aggravated burglary. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for these crimes. The legal issues involved assessing the gravity of the offences, identifying any aggravating or mitigating factors, and determining a suitable starting point for sentencing. The court also had to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing, including holding Abbott accountable, promoting a sense of responsibility, and deterring future offences.

The court identified several aggravating factors, including the home invasion, the vulnerability of the victim, the targeting of the victim's head, and the use of a weapon. However, the court did not consider the attack to be premeditated or extreme violence. The mitigating factors considered were Abbott's youth, genuine remorse, lack of prior offending, and guilty plea. The court decided on a starting point of four and a half years' imprisonment, which was then discounted by 30% for mitigating factors and a further 25% for the guilty plea. Abbott was sentenced to two years and four months' imprisonment for injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and eighteen months' imprisonment for aggravated burglary, to be served concurrently.

The final orders of the court were that Abbott was sentenced to two years and four months' imprisonment, with the possibility of parole within a short period if he demonstrated a commitment to a path of decent behaviour and severed ties with gang members. Abbott was also given a three strikes warning at arraignment.

Orders