R v Broughton - [2019] NZHC 2141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2018-088-440

[2019] NZHC 2141

THE QUEEN

v

GARY BROUGHTON

Hearing: 30 August 2019

Appearances:

R B Annandale for the Crown

L J Postlewaight for the Defendant

Judgment:

30 August 2019

SENTENCE OF GAULT J

Solicitors:
Mr R B Annandale, Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Whangarei Ms L J Postlewaight, Barrister, Wellington

R v BROUGHTON [2019] NZHC 2141 [30 August 2019]

[1] Mr Broughton has pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1 That was an amended charge following the empanelling of a jury and the hearing of evidential matters at the commencement of his trial on a charge of attempted murder.

[2] Disputed facts emerged and I determined which facts were proved following a hearing.2 In essence, the disputed facts related to matters of provocation and excessive self-defence.

[3] The Crown submits that a starting point of 10 to 11 years’ imprisonment is appropriate, with a modest uplift for Mr Broughton’s previous convictions, or at least no reduction for previous good character, and up to a 10 per cent discount for his guilty plea.

[4] Ms Postlewaight, for Mr Broughton, initially submitted the starting point should be 8 to 9 years’ imprisonment, with discounts for mitigating factors of provocation and excessive self-defence, previous good character, remorse, time on EM bail and the guilty plea. She subsequently revised this submission in a supplementary memorandum, submitting a starting point of 5 to 6 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. This morning she accepted the Crown submission that the starting point should be considered in two stages: first, the starting point for the offending, other than taking into account mitigating factors of the offending; and then with an adjustment for those factors. I consider that is correct and view the lower starting point as somewhat conflating those two stages.

Facts

[5] On 12 February 2018 Mr Broughton and Mr Manukau were having an argument over the theft of a pair of work boots that Mr Broughton alleged Mr Manukau had taken from him. Their argument started across the road from Mr Broughton’s house. At approximately 6:30 pm Mr Manukau followed Mr Broughton up Mr Broughton’s driveway.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1), maximum 14 years imprisonment.
2 R v Broughton [2019] NZHC 1566.

[6] Mr Broughton went into his house through his garage. He went to his bedroom, retrieved a samurai sword, and went outside back onto his drive. As Mr Manukau walked down the drive he heard someone say “yeah”. Mr Manukau turned around and immediately saw Mr Broughton coming towards him with blood coming from his head and an angry look on his face. Mr Manukau saw Mr Broughton was holding a samurai sword between his legs with the blade pointing upwards. By this point Mr Broughton was right in front of Mr Manukau. Mr Manukau believed he was about to be stabbed and moved…

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 Broughton

Details

AGLC: R v Broughton [2019] NZHC 2141
Case: [2019] NZHC 2141
Decision Date: 30 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Broughton was heard and decided on 30 August 2019. Mr. Gary Broughton pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, which was an amended charge from the original charge of attempted murder. The case involved a dispute over stolen work boots between Mr. Broughton and Mr. Manukau, leading to a violent confrontation where Mr. Broughton stabbed Mr. Manukau with a samurai sword. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering various mitigating factors such as provocation, excessive self-defence, and Mr. Broughton's guilty plea, as well as his previous convictions and personal circumstances. The court found that while the use of a weapon and the severity of the injury were significant aggravating factors, the mitigating factors of provocation and excessive self-defence warranted a reduction in the starting point. After considering all factors, Gault J sentenced Mr. Broughton to 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, reflecting a balance between the need for deterrence and the mitigating circumstances presented.

Orders