R v Cameron - [2016] NZHC 2604

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-090-000141 [2016] NZHC 2604

THE QUEEN

v

WILLIAM NICHOLAS CAMERON

Hearing: 1 November 2016

Appearances:

Mark Harborow and Luke Fraser for the Crown
Nicholas Wintour for the Defendant

Judgment:

1 November 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v CAMERON [2016] NZHC 2604 [1 November 2016]

Introduction

[1] William Nicholas Cameron, at the age of 21 you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to two charges. Of those, the most serious by far is the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1 That charge carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. The other charge, intentional damage, carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.2

Facts

[2] Before I move on to consider the question of what penalty I intend to impose I must set out the facts. While these are contained in the agreed summary of facts and will obviously be well-known to you, sentencing is a public function and as such I am required to recite the facts which are relevant to the sentencing process.

[3] The victim of your offending was your half brother, Richard Cameron. Richard moved to New Zealand from Perth in November 2015. The two of you were quite close. You had lived with him in Perth for about a year back in 2013.

[4] Immediately following Richard’s arrival in New Zealand you travelled down to Queenstown where you picked up a van which your father had converted into a modest campervan. Together, you began to travel around New Zealand ending up at the Muriwai Motor Camp on the evening of 8 January 2016.

[5] Over the course of the evening you, Richard and others were drinking and by the early hours of the following morning it was just you and Richard. Quite what sparked the argument which followed is uncertain. The summary refers to a disagreement which had its genesis in Richard taking $20 from you to buy cigarettes. That may be correct but to date you have offered no real explanation. In a psychiatric report commissioned to explore the availability of a defence of automatism, as well as comments attributed to you in the pre-sentence report, this dispute may have had its origins in your relationship with Richard going back to
your childhood. I will discuss this aspect later.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1).
2 Section 269(2)(a).

[6] The verbal altercation escalated to the point where you took a large knife and swung it several times at Richard. It is not clear where the knife came from. You told the probation officer it was on the seat beside your brother. The first blow connected with his neck. Subsequent slashes connected with other parts of his body. These included a large puncture wound to his left shoulder, a cut to his finger which went through to the bone and, most serious of all, a deep slash wound to his throat. There were other cuts to his head and a cut…

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 Cameron

Details

AGLC: R v Cameron [2016] NZHC 2604
Case: [2016] NZHC 2604
Decision Date: 1 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Cameron involved William Nicholas Cameron, who was sentenced after pleading guilty to two charges: wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and intentional damage. The most severe charge, wounding with intent, carried a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, while the charge of intentional damage carried a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. The victim, Richard Cameron, William's half-brother, suffered serious injuries including a deep slash wound to his throat, a large puncture wound to his left shoulder, and a cut to his finger that went through to the bone. The attack also resulted in economic and psychological consequences for Richard.

The legal issues the court had to decide included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, assessing the aggravating and mitigating factors, and deciding whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI). The court considered the use of a weapon, the extent of harm caused, targeting the head, and premeditation as aggravating factors, while taking into account William's youth, previous good character, remorse, and mental health issues as mitigating factors. The court also evaluated the impact of William's guilty plea on the sentencing.

The court determined an appropriate starting point of eight years' imprisonment, taking into consideration the similarities and differences with other cases. The court applied discounts for William's good character, remorse, and mental health issues, and granted a 15% reduction for his guilty plea. The final sentence was five years and nine months' imprisonment, with a concurrent 12-month sentence for the charge of intentional damage. The court imposed an MPI of 50%, or 34 months, to address the purposes of deterrence, denunciation, and accountability. The court declined to order reparation for the costs of replacing the gate, as William did not have the means to meet these costs.

Orders