R v Bell - [2023] NZHC 1076

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2022-054-1202

[2023] NZHC 1076

THE KING

v

BRIAN JASON BELL

Hearing: 5 May 2023

Appearances:

D R Davis and G L Duncan for Crown

S J Winter and G M Stone for Defendant

Date:

5 May 2023

SENTENCING REMARKS OF McQUEEN J

Introduction

[1] Mr Bell, you appear for sentence today having been convicted of a single charge of attempted murder, the maximum penalty for which is 14 years’ imprisonment.1

[2] In sentencing you today, I will first describe the nature of the offending, then outline the approach that is taken in assessing a starting point for offending of this kind. I will then address discounts from the starting point arising from any matters that are personal to you. Finally, I will consider whether a minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 173.

R v BELL [2023] NZHC 1076 [5 May 2023]

[3] The sentence I fix today must be in accordance with the principles and purposes of the Sentencing Act 2002, as recognised by counsel. Those that are relevant in your case include: the need to hold you accountable for the harm caused to the victim; to promote in you a sense of responsibility for that harm; to provide for the interests of the victim; to denounce your offending; and to deter you and others from similar offending.

[4] I accept as Mr Winter submits and the Crown also accepts, that in the present case protecting the community from you is a less relevant purpose of your sentencing. I must consider the gravity of the offending, particularly in relation to similar circumstances, the need for consistency in sentencing outcomes; information the Court has on the effects of the offending on the victim; and your background. Your rehabilitation and reintegration are also relevant in fixing the end sentence. Finally, the law requires me to impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances.

The offending

[5] I turn now to describe the facts of the offending, which are of course familiar to you. I too am familiar with them, having presided over the trial and having seen and heard the witnesses. But because sentencing is a public function which is required to be undertaken in open Court, it is important that I set these out.

[6] At the time of the offending in June 2022, you had been married to the complainant, Ms Peterson, for about 24 years. You were living together at a remote rural address in Pohangina, near Palmerston North. You are a 47 year old engineer and you have not previously appeared before the Court. You and Ms Peterson have two children, a 21 year old son and an 18 year old daughter.

[7] In mid-May 2022, Ms Peterson told you she was unhappy in your marriage and wanted it to end. You and Ms Peterson discussed this at length, but…

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 Bell

Details

AGLC: R v Bell [2023] NZHC 1076
Case: [2023] NZHC 1076
Decision Date: 5 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brian Jason Bell was convicted of attempted murder and appeared for sentencing before McQueen J. The primary legal issue was determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court considered the unique circumstances of the case, including the use of a car as a weapon, the vulnerability of the victim, and the offender's mental health at the time of the offence. The court found that the appropriate starting point was six years' imprisonment, but applied discounts for the offender's previous good character, mental health at the time of the offence, and time spent on electronically-monitored bail. The final sentence imposed was four years and six months' imprisonment.

The court's reasoning was based on the principles and purposes of the Sentencing Act 2002, which include holding the offender accountable for the harm caused, promoting a sense of responsibility, providing for the interests of the victim, denouncing the offending, and deterring the offender and others from similar offending. The court took into account the gravity of the offending, the need for consistency in sentencing outcomes, the effects of the offending on the victim, and the offender's background and rehabilitation potential. The court also considered the least restrictive outcome that was appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders