R v Allen
Case
•
[2020] NZHC 1796
•23 July 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Allen [2020] NZHC 1796
[2020] NZHC 1796
23 July 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Wiremu Tamahana Allen was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand on 23 July 2020 for a charge of wounding with reckless disregard. The case was presided over by Clark J, with G J Burston representing the Crown and C J Nicholls representing the defendant. The court sentenced Allen to seven years' imprisonment for the offence, which was his third strike under the three strikes regime. This meant that the maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment was mandatory, with the only consideration being whether it would be manifestly unjust to order Allen to serve the sentence without parole.
The court considered various factors in determining whether the manifestly unjust exception applied. These included Allen's extensive criminal history, his exposure to systemic poverty and deprivation, his addiction issues, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court found that Allen's background of systemic deprivation and his early exposure to violence and gangs contributed to his offending, and that a discount of 15 per cent was warranted for these factors. Additionally, Allen's addiction issues and potential for rehabilitation were taken into account, resulting in a further discount of 20 per cent. The court also considered the disparity between Allen's sentence and that of his co-offender, but found that this did not warrant a departure from the three strikes regime.
Ultimately, the court concluded that it would be manifestly unjust to order Allen to serve the sentence without parole. The court found that Allen's personal circumstances, including his unstable and abusive background, his early exposure to violence, and his potential for rehabilitation, warranted a departure from the three strikes regime. The court declined to order Allen to serve the sentence without parole and instead sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment.
The final orders of the court were that Allen be sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, that he be ineligible for parole, and that his unpaid fines be remitted in full. Allen's current community work sentence was also cancelled, and the charge for breach of community work was withdrawn.
The court considered various factors in determining whether the manifestly unjust exception applied. These included Allen's extensive criminal history, his exposure to systemic poverty and deprivation, his addiction issues, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court found that Allen's background of systemic deprivation and his early exposure to violence and gangs contributed to his offending, and that a discount of 15 per cent was warranted for these factors. Additionally, Allen's addiction issues and potential for rehabilitation were taken into account, resulting in a further discount of 20 per cent. The court also considered the disparity between Allen's sentence and that of his co-offender, but found that this did not warrant a departure from the three strikes regime.
Ultimately, the court concluded that it would be manifestly unjust to order Allen to serve the sentence without parole. The court found that Allen's personal circumstances, including his unstable and abusive background, his early exposure to violence, and his potential for rehabilitation, warranted a departure from the three strikes regime. The court declined to order Allen to serve the sentence without parole and instead sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment.
The final orders of the court were that Allen be sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, that he be ineligible for parole, and that his unpaid fines be remitted in full. Allen's current community work sentence was also cancelled, and the charge for breach of community work was withdrawn.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Criminal Liability
-
Sentencing
-
Three Strikes Regime
-
Cultural Factors
-
Rehabilitation
-
Addiction
-
Guilty Plea
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v Allen [2020] NZHC 1796
Most Recent Citation
R v Nepia [2022] NZHC 198
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Allen v R
[2022] NZCA 630
R v Nepia
[2022] NZHC 198
Benson v Police
[2020] NZHC 1946
Cases Cited
17
Statutory Material Cited
0
R v Harrison
[2016] NZCA 381
Nuku v R
[2012] NZCA 584
Hannay v Police
[2014] NZHC 2015