R v Bruce - [2021] NZHC 880

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

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

CRI-2019-088-1656

[2021] NZHC 880

THE QUEEN

v

MYLES ANTHONY BRUCE

Hearing: 23 April 2021

Counsel:

M B Smith for Crown

W D McKean and S L Plaisted for Defendant

Sentenced:

23 April 2021

Charges:

Threaten to kill (7); Injuring with intent to injure (2); Indecent assault (3); Assault with a weapon; Sexual violation by rape (11); Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (2); Male assaults female (3); Sexual violation by unlawful sexual

connection (4)

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors:
MWIS Lawyers (Whangarei) for Crown WRMK Lawyers (Whangarei) for Defendant

R v BRUCE [2021] NZHC 880 [23 April 2021]

Introduction

[1] Mr Bruce, the jury found you guilty on 33 charges, including charges in respect of each of your five partners. I have to sentence you today in accordance with the jury’s verdicts.

[2] First, however, I have to give you a warning under what is known as the ‘three strikes legislation’. The law simply requires me to give this warning:

Given your convictions for rape, sexual violation and other serious violent offences, you are now subject to the three strikes law. I am now going to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written notice outlining these consequences, which lists the ‘serious violent offences’.

If you are convicted on any serious violent offences other than murder committed after this warning and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment, then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release.

If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning, then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. That will be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

[3] As you know, the Crown seeks a sentence of preventive detention. So, I will structure this sentencing as follows. First, for each complainant, I will describe the charges and the evidence which I conclude the jury must have accepted in order to find you guilty. I will then calculate a starting point of imprisonment in respect of each complainant.

[4] At the end of that process I will have five starting points. I cannot simply add them together to reach an overall starting point of imprisonment. The result would be too high. The law requires me to set an overall starting point which reflects the totality of your offending.

[5] Once I have assessed the overall starting point, I will consider factors personal to you to decide if the starting point should be reduced.

[6] I will then decide whether a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) should be imposed.

[7] Once that is done, I will have reached the sentence I will…

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 Bruce

Details

AGLC: R v Bruce [2021] NZHC 880
Case: [2021] NZHC 880
Decision Date: 23 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Myles Bruce was found guilty on 33 charges by a jury. These charges related to each of his five former partners. The Crown sought a sentence of preventive detention, while the defendant's counsel submitted that a finite sentence would be appropriate, with a reduction due to the defendant's personal factors. The court considered the totality of the offending, and the nature and extent of the harm caused. The court determined that a sentence of preventive detention was not appropriate, and instead sentenced the defendant to 19 years' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of nine years and six months. This sentence was considered sufficient to hold the defendant accountable, denounce his conduct, deter him from further offending, and protect the community.

Orders