R v Byles - [2022] NZHC 2897

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2021-043-1077

[2022] NZHC 2897

THE QUEEN

v

ERRON JAMES BYLES

and

TYLA ZOE PIGOTT

Sentencing: 4 November 2022

Counsel:

R L Hicklin for the Crown S Tait for Mr Byles

K Pascoe for Ms Pigott

Sentencing Notes:

4 November 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF GWYN J

Introduction

[1] Erron Byles you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1

[2] Tyla Pigott you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard.2

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 198(1)(a) carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment
2 Sections 198(2) and 66(1) carry a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

R v BYLES & PIGOTT [2022] NZHC 2897 [4 November 2022]

[3] In sentencing you today, I apply a law called the Sentencing Act 2002, which sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing. The purpose of sentencing in your case is to hold each of you accountable for the harm you have caused to the victim and to the community; to have you accept responsibility for, and acknowledge, that harm; to denounce your criminal conduct and deter you and others from similar offending; to protect the community; and to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into society.3 What that means in practice is that I have to look at the whole situation and do what I can to mark what you have done, but also to acknowledge each of you and your particular circumstances and background.

[4] I will first say something about your offending, explain your personal circumstances, and set out counsel’s submissions. I will then calculate a sentence by adopting a two-step approach: first, I will set a starting point based on the offence each of you is charged with; and second, I will consider whether to apply any increases (uplifts) and discounts to reflect your personal aggravating and mitigating factors.

[5] Because sentencing is a public process, I have to talk about the detail of what happened.

The offending

[6] Mr Byles you and the victim know each other and have socially interacted with each other before. It is my understanding that now, after the offending, you and the victim are once again on good terms. At the time of the offending, tensions were running high between elements of the Taranaki criminal underworld and the victim. This meant that the victim and related associates were routinely armed.

[7] At about 2 am on 20 July 2021, Mr Byles you were being driven by Ms Pigott, who was your partner at the time. Mr Byles you were armed with a silenced .22 semi- automatic rifle, loaded with a magazine of .22 ammunition. After noticing the victim driving in the same area, you directed Ms Pigott to follow him.

3 Sentencing Act 2002, s 7.

[8] Ms Pigott, you followed the victim’s car…

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 Byles

Details

AGLC: R v Byles [2022] NZHC 2897
Case: [2022] NZHC 2897
Decision Date: 4 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Byles and Pigott arose in the High Court of New Zealand, New Plymouth Registry. Erron James Byles and Tyla Zoe Pigott were sentenced for their roles in an incident involving the discharge of a firearm. Byles pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, while Pigott pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm with reckless disregard. The court was tasked with determining appropriate sentences for each defendant, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offending, the defendants' backgrounds, and relevant legal principles.

The court had to decide on the appropriate starting points for each defendant's sentence, consider whether any uplifts or discounts should apply, and ultimately determine the most suitable sentences. For Byles, the court had to weigh his extensive criminal history, his role as the principal offender, and his personal circumstances, including his history of drug use and troubled background. For Pigott, the court considered her lesser role in the offending, her relatively minor criminal history, and her personal mitigating factors, including her pregnancy and expressed remorse.

The court adopted a starting point of four years and six months' imprisonment for Byles, reflecting the seriousness of his role as the principal offender and the number of shots fired. This starting point was uplifted by three months due to Byles' extensive criminal history, which indicated a high risk of reoffending. However, the sentence was discounted by 15% for his guilty plea and a further 15% for his personal mitigating factors, resulting in a final sentence of three years and four months' imprisonment. For Pigott, the court set a starting point of two years and six months' imprisonment, which was discounted by 25% for her guilty plea and a further 25% for her personal mitigating factors, leading to a final sentence of intensive supervision for eighteen months, considering her pregnancy and potential for rehabilitation.

Byles was sentenced to three years and four months' imprisonment, while Pigott was sentenced to eighteen months of intensive supervision, reflecting the court's focus on her rehabilitation and the impact of her sentence on her unborn child. The court also ordered the destruction of the firearm and ammunition used in the offending.

Orders