R v Bartlett - [2018] NZHC 3449

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2018-012-001000

[2018] NZHC 3449

THE QUEEN

v

WADE DYLAN BARTLETT

Hearing: 20 December 2018

Appearances:

M N Zarifeh for the Crown N M Laws for the Defendant

Judgment:

21 December 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J

[1] Mr Bartlett, I have to sentence you for serious violent offending. You will know that you are either up for a lengthy term of imprisonment or a sentence of preventive detention. If I impose a sentence of preventive detention, you will not know when you might be released from prison. You will remain in prison until the Parole Board is satisfied there is no longer a significant risk of your committing serious violent offences, such as occurred while you have been in prison.

[2] Here you are, visibly marked as a member of a gang that has been a major reason for your offending and for your being at risk of a sentence of preventive detention. It is a tragedy to see a young man aged 33 in Court facing the prospect of such a sentence. It is however good to see you have some support in Court. It is not what I had expected for reading the reports.

R v BARTLETT [2018] NZHC 3449 [21 December 2018]

[3] I will be talking to you about your offending later. Right now, I want to identify certain aspects of your history and your potential that are apparent from the two detailed reports provided to me by Dr Panckhurst and Ms Wilton.

[4] There is little in those reports to indicate that you have much, if any, empathy for the prisoners who have been the victims of your offending, but there is information in the report which indicates to me that you are capable of having positive feelings for others. You could value the support you might obtain, not from being in a gang, but from your whānau and wider community, provided they commit to helping you step away from the life you have been leading.

[5] In particular, I noted the references to the respect and love you had for your mother. You acknowledge she took the initiative when you were very young to have you moved away from the environment of violence and abuse in which, from birth, you were brought up. During her life, she made decisions and took action which must have been brave but which came with considerable consequences for her. She had the strength of character to do that. You need to show that you have the same strength of character so as not to be subject to the influence of gang culture to do things which leave you having to be sentenced for the sort of violent offending for which I must sentence you now.

[6] For you to extract yourself from that gang environment will be difficult. It will be difficult while you are in prison but it is something…

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 Bartlett

Details

AGLC: R v Bartlett [2018] NZHC 3449
Case: [2018] NZHC 3449
Decision Date: 21 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Bartlett involved the defendant, Wade Dylan Bartlett, who faced sentencing for serious violent offences, including injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, injuring with intent to injure, and assault with intent to injure. The court also considered charges of theft and receiving stolen property. The sentencing remarks of Nation J outlined the circumstances of each offence, highlighting the premeditated and gang-related nature of the attacks, as well as the vulnerability of the victims. The court examined the defendant's history of violence, his involvement with gangs, and his potential for rehabilitation. Reports from Dr Panckhurst and Ms Wilton suggested that the defendant could benefit from rehabilitation programs that focused on his Māori cultural background and provided support from his whānau and the wider community. The sentencing also took into account the defendant's hearing difficulties and the potential for assistance in this area.

The court determined starting point sentences for each of the violent offences, considering factors such as premeditation, the vulnerability of the victims, and the defendant's role in the attacks. The court then applied discounts for the defendant's guilty pleas and considered whether further discounts for totality were appropriate. The court also addressed the defendant's dishonesty offences, imposing sentences for theft and receiving stolen property, as well as charges related to breaching community work and release conditions. Finally, the court considered whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention, ultimately deciding against it but warning the defendant that further violent offending would likely result in such a sentence. The effective sentence for all the offences was determined to be seven years' imprisonment.

Orders