R v Broughton - [2017] NZHC 671

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-092-002890 [2017] NZHC 671

THE QUEEN

v

ISAAC CRUZ ERU BROUGHTON

Hearing: 7 April 2017

Appearances:

E J McCaughan and JJ Rhodes for Crown
D Niven on instructions from I Jayanandan for Defendant

Sentenced:

7 April 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Auckland
Copy to: I Jayanandan and D Niven, Auckland

R v BROUGHTON [2017] NZHC 671 [7 April 2017]

[1] Isaac Cruz Broughton you are for sentence having been found guilty of murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. On 12 March 2016 you shot and killed Shon Wanahi and shot and grievously injured Bunji Fenton. You have heard from the victim impact statements from Mr Wanahi’s family the impact that your actions have had on them.

[2] There are a number of issues for the Court to consider regarding sentence this morning: first, whether it would be manifestly unjust to impose a sentence of life imprisonment for murder; next, if life imprisonment is not imposed what the appropriate finite sentence should be; and finally, if life imprisonment is imposed for the murder what the minimum non-parole period should be. I start with the facts.

[3] On 12 March 2016 at around 12.50 in the morning you and two associates Laren Walker and Jamie Sylva were driving to Papakura to see another friend. Apparently he owed some money and you thought he may also have some cigarettes. You had a loaded sawn-off shotgun with you in the car. Your explanation for having the weapon was that it was for your protection. You had an association with a gang but had fallen out with members of it and had left Auckland for a time. When you returned to Auckland you brought the gun back with you for your protection.

[4] Just before you arrived at your friend’s place you saw some people in the park. You thought they were your friends, you stopped the car, jumped out with the shotgun, went up to them and pointed the gun at them saying words to the effect of “what’s up motherfucker” which I accept was intended as some sort of joking bravado.

[5] That was a major mistake on your part. The people you confronted with the gun were not your friends or associates. There were at least four people, one or more of whom were or had been members of another gang. They did not take kindly to being confronted by a person wielding a shotgun and pointing it at them. They initially stood their ground and then advanced on you. You went back to your car. Although the ignition key was broken the car was able to be operated and there was evidence the engine was in fact running. But it seems you did not have time to drive off. You were punched through the driver’s window by Bunji Fenton. Your friend

Laren Walker, who had briefly got out of the car, was…

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 [2017] NZHC 671
Case: [2017] NZHC 671
Decision Date: 7 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Isaac Cruz Eru Broughton was found guilty of murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The case was heard by Venning J in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The court had to decide whether it would be manifestly unjust to impose a sentence of life imprisonment for murder, what the appropriate finite sentence should be if life imprisonment was not imposed, and what the minimum non-parole period should be if life imprisonment was imposed for the murder. The court heard that Broughton had shot and killed Shon Wanahi and shot and grievously injured Bunji Fenton on 12 March 2016. The court found that it would not be manifestly unjust to impose a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. The court took into account the fact that Broughton had deliberately carried a loaded shotgun with apparent intent to use it to defend himself if necessary, and that the other group was unarmed. The court also took into account Broughton's previous convictions, including convictions for aggravated assault from 2012, and two convictions for common assault from 2010. The court sentenced Broughton to life imprisonment for the murder of Shon Wanahi, with a minimum non-parole period of 12 years. On the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, the court sentenced Broughton to seven years concurrent.

The court found that the circumstances of the offending, including the use of excessive self-defence and Broughton's personal circumstances, warranted a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 12 years. The court also found that Broughton's additional culpability for the offence of wounding Bunji Fenton with intent to cause grievous bodily harm required a further minimum non-parole period of an additional two years. The court noted that while Broughton had expressed remorse, he did not appear to have full insight into his offending, and the pre-sentence report did not suggest that he had accepted full responsibility for his offending.

Orders