R v Broughton - [2019] NZHC 1566

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 1566

THE QUEEN

v

GARY BROUGHTON

Hearing: 12 and 13 June 2019 (and later submissions)

Appearances:

R B Annandale for the Crown

L J Postlewaight for the Defendant

Judgment:

5 July 2019

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

(Disputed facts)

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 July 2019 at 4:00 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

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

R v BROUGHTON [2019] NZHC 1566 [5 July 2019]

[1] On 5 March 2019 Mr Broughton pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding Mr Sonny Manukau 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 on 4 March 2019 at the commencement of his trial on a charge of attempted murder.

[2] Disputed facts emerged in the lead up to sentencing, which was adjourned pending a disputed facts hearing. In essence, the disputed facts relate to matters of provocation and excessive self-defence.2 At the conclusion of the evidence on 13 June 2019, counsel sought to file submissions in writing by 21 June 2019.

Summary of facts

[3] On 12 February 2018 at approximately 6:30 pm Mr Broughton and Mr Manukau were in the driveway of Mr Broughton’s home on Karakanui Road in Tinopai. They were having an argument over the theft of a pair of work boots that Mr Broughton alleged Mr Manukau had taken from him.

[4] After the short argument 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 with 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 to his left as Mr Broughton lunged towards him with the sword in a stabbing motion towards his neck. The sword pierced the front right of Mr Manukau’s neck and exited out the back right of his neck. Mr Manukau did not immediately realise he had been stabbed. Mr Broughton then pulled the sword from Mr Manukau’s neck, planted his left foot forward and lunged forward with the sword going towards Mr Manukau’s stomach. Mr Manukau stepped back and grabbed Mr Broughton’s wrist. Mr Manukau says that in self-defence he grabbed the sword from Mr Broughton while using Mr Broughton’s momentum to

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1), maximum 14 years imprisonment.
2 Matters which…

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 1566
Case: [2019] NZHC 1566
Decision Date: 5 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Gary Broughton faced sentencing after pleading guilty to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The case revolved around a dispute between Broughton and Sonny Manukau over a pair of allegedly stolen work boots. The primary issue was whether certain facts, if proven, would qualify as mitigating or aggravating factors in sentencing. The mitigating facts included whether there was provocation or excessive self-defence, while the aggravating facts included whether Broughton lunged at Manukau a second time and whether he threatened to kill him.

The court found that the Crown had not disproven beyond reasonable doubt that Manukau assaulted Broughton on the driveway, pushed his head into the stones, followed him into his house, and sought to gain entry. The court also found that Broughton's fear of further violence from Manukau was not disproven. However, the court could not be certain that Broughton initially came out with the sword to protect himself or that he retrieved the sword before going inside. Regarding the aggravating facts, the court found that the Crown had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Broughton lunged at Manukau a second time or that he threatened to kill him. Ultimately, the weight of these facts would be assessed during sentencing.

Orders