R v Bell - [2015] NZHC 779

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2014-043-680 [2015] NZHC 779

THE QUEEN

v

BRENDON LEE CHARLES BELL

Hearing: 21 April 2015

Counsel:

C E Clarke for Crown
C B Wilkinson-Smith for Defendant

Judgment:

21 April 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, New Plymouth
Counsel:
C B Wilkinson-Smith, Auckland

R v BELL [2015] NZHC 779 [21 April 2015]

Introduction

[1] Brendon Lee Charles Bell, you appear before the Court today for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of common assault. The incident that gave rise to the charge occurred on 1 March 2014 at Waitara. The person whom you assaulted (Mr Reginald John Bell) was your father. Tragically, he subsequently died.

[2] Initially, you were charged with manslaughter, to which you pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the charge was amended (on 6 March 2015) to one of common assault. That was done following a decision by the Crown Solicitor at New Plymouth that the circumstances were such that you should not be held responsible for the death through a charge of manslaughter. On the material I have read, that was a responsible decision by the Crown Solicitor and, ultimately, the Solicitor-General.

[3] On 6 March 2015, you entered a plea of guilty to the charge of assault. You were remanded to today for sentence. The offence with which you have been charged carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for one year.

[4] Before I go further, I wish to acknowledge the presence of members of your family here today. In particular, I wish to acknowledge Mr Douglas Bell and Mr David Bell, who spoke so eloquently to the victim impact statements that have been read. I take into account what they have said as having been said on behalf of the family as a whole.

[5] Now, Mr Bell you may be seated while I carry on with my remarks and I will ask you to stand when I formally pass sentence at the end of the process. Thank you.

Facts

[6] Mr Bell you are 23 years old and live in Auckland. On 1 March 2014, you and your father were in Waitara attending a tangi for a family member who had passed away a few days earlier. Afterwards, the two of you, and other family members, went into a bar in Waitara where alcohol was consumed. Your father got into an argument with another patron. Commendably, you stepped in in an endeavour to stop a possible fight.

[7] You, your father and another family member left the bar at about 9.30pm and bought some beer from an off licence before returning to an address at which other family members were present. By this stage, your father had become very intoxicated.

[8] He decided that he wanted to get some food and indicated he intended to drive back into the township. Again, commendably, you intervened and insisted that you drive. Unfortunately, you too had consumed alcohol, though you believed you…

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 [2015] NZHC 779
Case: [2015] NZHC 779
Decision Date: 21 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bell, Brendon Lee Charles Bell was brought before the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing on a charge of common assault. The incident leading to the charge occurred on 1 March 2014 in Waitara, where Bell assaulted his father, Reginald John Bell, who tragically died as a result. Initially charged with manslaughter, the charge was later amended to common assault following a decision by the Crown Solicitor that Bell should not be held responsible for the death. Bell pleaded guilty to the amended charge and was remanded to sentencing.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether to impose a conviction or to discharge Bell without conviction. The court considered the gravity of the offence, taking into account various aggravating and mitigating factors. The court also examined the consequences of a conviction and whether they were disproportionate to the offence's severity. Given Bell's remorse, his good character, and the strong support from his family, the court found that a discharge without conviction was appropriate.

The court reasoned that Bell's actions, though not condoned, were understandable given the circumstances. Bell had attempted to prevent his father from engaging in harmful behaviour and had already been sentenced for a related charge of driving with an excess breath alcohol concentration. The family's unanimous support for a discharge without conviction, and their lack of blame towards Bell for his father's death, further supported this decision. The court concluded that imposing a conviction would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, especially considering the public nature of the sentencing.

Bell was discharged without conviction on the charge of assaulting his father, allowing him to avoid further sanction from the court and enabling him to move forward without the additional burden of a criminal record.

Orders