R v Caine - [2014] NZHC 2330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-019-003032 [2014] NZHC 2330

THE QUEEN

v

STEPHEN ROBERT CAINE

Counsel:
R G Douch for Crown

P J A Buckle for Prisoner

Sentence:

26 September 2014

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Caine, you appear for sentencing having pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with reckless disregard for the safety of others.1 You entered your plea after I gave you a sentence indication on 19 May 2014.

[2] I advise you from the outset that I am going to be sentencing you to home detention.

[3] In explaining your sentence, I shall: (1) Summarise your offending.
(2) Set out the starting point for your sentence.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2).

R v CAINE [2014] NZHC 2330 [26 September 2014]

(3)Set out the adjustments I will make to the starting point of your sentence.

(4) Set out the sentence that I am imposing.

Your offending

[4] On 5 June 2013 you and friends had been drinking at your place in Coromandel. In the early evening Mr Somers, a long-term friend came to your home. He also had been consuming alcohol.

[5] It was intended that Mr Somers would cook a meal for you, himself and your daughter, Siobhan. Mr Somers left to go and purchase some food.

[6] When Mr Somers returned a dispute broke out between the two of you. It

culminated in you taking a bread knife and cutting Mr Somers’ neck.

[7] The wound inflicted to Mr Somers was not in itself life threatening but Mr Somers did require extensive medical care and attention at Waikato Hospital where he was kept for approximately two days.

[8] You admitted your wrongdoing to Senior Constable Morrissey when he spoke to you in Coromandel the next morning.

The starting point

[9] I am adopting a starting point of two years and four months’ imprisonment. This starting point appropriately reflects your culpability and is consistent with recent High Court decisions.2

[10] In referring to comparable cases I emphasise that each case has to be assessed on its own merits. Rarely are two cases identical.

2 Hepi v Police [2013] NZHC 2690; Dixon v Police HC Tauranga CRI-2011-470-24, 5 October
2011 and Swan v Police [2014] NZHC 69.

Adjustments

[11] Your previous convictions are not significant or particularly relevant. Your last offending was 20 years ago. I place your previous convictions to one side when considering the sentence that should be imposed upon you today.

[12] I am willing to give you a discount to reflect your guilty plea and to some degree the remorse that you have demonstrated.

[13] I will deduct five months from the starting point to reflect your guilty plea.

[14] I will deduct a further one month imprisonment to reflect your remorse and the efforts that you have taken to address your underlying alcohol problems.

[15] This produces a provisional sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment.

Home detention

[16] I have previously indicated…

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 Caine

Details

AGLC: R v Caine [2014] NZHC 2330
Case: [2014] NZHC 2330
Decision Date: 26 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Caine involved the defendant, Stephen Robert Caine, who pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with reckless disregard for the safety of others. The incident occurred on 5 June 2013, when Caine and his friend, Mr. Somers, had been drinking at Caine’s place in Coromandel. A dispute arose between them, culminating in Caine cutting Mr. Somers’ neck with a bread knife. The wound required extensive medical attention but was not life-threatening.

The primary legal issue before the court was determining an appropriate sentence for Caine’s offence, considering factors such as his culpability, prior convictions, the nature of the offence, and the impact on the victim. The court needed to balance the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002, including holding the offender accountable, promoting a sense of responsibility, denouncing the conduct, deterring future offences, and ensuring the sentence is the least restrictive option appropriate for the circumstances.

The court began by setting a starting point of two years and four months’ imprisonment, reflecting Caine’s culpability and consistent with recent High Court decisions. It then made adjustments to this starting point, deducting five months for Caine's guilty plea and a further month for his demonstrated remorse and efforts to address his alcohol problems. After these adjustments, the provisional sentence was 22 months’ imprisonment. However, considering the suitability of home detention, the court opted for a nine-month home detention sentence, as it believed this would serve the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act, including holding Caine accountable, promoting responsibility, denouncing the conduct, deterring future offences, and being the least restrictive outcome appropriate in Caine's circumstances.

The court imposed a sentence of nine months’ home detention to be served at 21 Pringle Place, Nawton, Hamilton. Caine was prohibited from possessing, consuming, or using alcohol or illicit drugs during his sentence. He was also required to attend assessments, counselling, and any treatment programs directed by a probation officer. Additionally, Caine had to reside continuously at the specified address and notify a probation officer of any changes in employment or voluntary work. This sentence was intended to ensure accountability and address the underlying issues contributing to the offence.

Orders