R v Chadwick - [2024] NZHC 898

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2022-20-2675

[2024] NZHC 898

THE KING

v

KEONTAY WAYNE CHADWICK

Hearing: 22 April 2024

Appearances:

S B Manning for Crown M J Phelps for Defendant

Judgment:

22 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1] Today, Mr Chadwick, I have to sentence you for the crime of the manslaughter of Darcy Strickland.1 You were present in Court earlier this morning and you will have heard the victim impact statements that were read to the Court. You can be in no doubt as to the enormous loss that has been caused to the whānau and friends of Mr Strickland by your actions.

[2] The details of the offending were also covered this morning, and I am not going to repeat those other than to focus on the facts that are particularly relevant to you and your sentencing.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 177 – maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

R v CHADWICK [2024] NZHC 898 [22 April 2024]

[3] On the night of 13 October 2022, you approached Mr Strickland, V and their two friends who were walking home in Flaxmere after having attended a party. It seems that after an interaction with you, V shoved you in the chest. You then walked off after V turned away towards another member of the public who had come out of their house to see what was happening.

[4] As Mr Manning has pointed out this morning, it appears that you deliberately went away and got Mr Todd and went looking for the people you had met earlier in the evening. When you found them, you approached Mr Strickland and V. A verbal altercation took place, Mr Todd began to strike Mr Strickland, causing him to fall to the ground. You stood close by watching that attack.

[5] As Mr Manning reminded me this morning after the point at which it was clear that Mr Strickland was unable to respond, you joined in the attack. It is correct we don’t know exactly how many blows you were responsible for however it is also clear that you brutally assaulted Mr Strickland. Towards the end of the attack, you joined in on the assault against Mr Strickland. You are not facing any charges in relation to V, although I note that in one of the psychiatric reports on the file, you are alleged to have said you told the report writer that you had punched her. You are not being sentenced today for anything to do with V but solely in relation to your part in the attack on Mr Strickland.

[6] Mr Strickland died of the injuries inflicted upon him by you and Mr Todd. The severe head injuries impaired his breathing ability and he ultimately seems to have suffocated from the blood that filled his mouth and airways, preventing him from breathing.

[7] After the attack on Mr Strickland and V, you left with Mr Todd, and…

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 Chadwick

Details

AGLC: R v Chadwick [2024] NZHC 898
Case: [2024] NZHC 898
Decision Date: 22 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Keontay Wayne Chadwick, was sentenced for the manslaughter of Darcy Strickland. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at the Napier Registry. The Crown argued for a starting point in the range of eight years' imprisonment, with a modest uplift for the defendant's previous offending and a reduction for his guilty plea. The defence argued for a starting point of 7.5–8 years, with a significant discount for the defendant's personal circumstances, including his youth, deprivation, addiction, mental health issues, and remorse. The judge considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the defendant's previous convictions, his personal circumstances, and his guilty plea. The court set a starting point of eight years' imprisonment and applied discounts for the defendant's guilty plea and personal circumstances, resulting in a final sentence of three years and eleven months' imprisonment. The defendant was sentenced for the manslaughter of Darcy Strickland.

The court found that the defendant's previous convictions for violence, his breach of his intensive supervision order, and his failure to take his medication and consume drugs and alcohol, which were triggers for his violence, were aggravating factors. The court also found that the defendant's personal circumstances, including his background of abuse, deprivation, and mental illness, his youth, and his remorse, were mitigating factors. The court considered these factors in determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant. The court concluded that a sentence of three years and eleven months' imprisonment was appropriate, taking into account the seriousness of the offending and the need for deterrence and community protection, as well as the reality of the defendant's personal circumstances.

Orders