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 both of you seemed to have entered a sleep out at an address in Flaxmere.

[8]    The next day you visited your probation officer, and you told him that you had been in a fight. Your account to the probation officer was that the guy (meaning the victim) “got smashed over” and that it was “really scary” because something had happened to the guy’s face. You said that Mr Todd was about to lose and so you

jumped in to help him. That’s not an accurate account of what you actually did. You assaulted Mr Strickland once he was already unable to defend himself.

[9]    You were originally charged with murder, but offered to plead guilty to manslaughter on 21 December 2023. This came six months after a finding you were fit to stand trial and did not have a defence of insanity. Approval was granted and you entered a plea of guilty on 16 January 2024.

[10]   I now address the submissions of counsel, both the detailed written submissions which they have filed and the oral submissions this morning that they have supplemented their written submissions with.

[11]Mr Manning, counsel for the Crown submits the following:

(a)With reference to the relevant statutory provisions and case law, a starting point in the range of eight years’ imprisonment is appropriate.

(b)A modest uplift for your previous offending is justified.

(c)A reduction in the range of 15 per cent for your guilty plea is appropriate.

(d)There should be a more limited discount for your youth given the seriousness of the offending and the fact that, at the age of 23, you are at the upper limit of the age range that attracts an age discount.

(e)Your personal circumstances, in particular your mental health condition and social deprivation, justify a significant reduction from the starting point.

(f)Your actions were equally likely to have been driven by the effects of drugs than by your personal circumstances.

(g)A totality approach that reflects both the seriousness of your offending and the need for deterrence and community protection, as well as the reality of your personal circumstances, should be taken.

(h)A total reduction, in addition to the guilty plea, should be in the range of 40 per cent.

[12]Mr Manning does not seek a minimum period of imprisonment.

[13]Your counsel, Mr Phelps, submits that:

(a)A starting point in the range of 7.5–8 years was appropriate.

(b)A discount of 15 per cent for your guilty plea should be given.

(c)There should be a discount of 40 per cent for your personal circumstances including your youth, deprivation, addiction, mental health issues and remorse.

(d)An uplift of four months for your previous convictions is appropriate.

[14]   Mr Phelps also submits that there should not be a minimum period of imprisonment.

[15]   Your counsel submits that a final sentence in the range of three years and eight months’ to three years, nine months’ that would be appropriate.

[16]   I now turn to explain the approach that I must take to sentencing. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment. There is no guideline case for manslaughter due to the wide variety of circumstances for which manslaughter arises.2 I can either:

2      R v Kulitapa HC Auckland CRI-2006-024-000487, 21 February 2008 at [9] citing R v Leuta [2002] 1 NZLR 215; R v Thomas [2018] NZHC 819 at [49].

(a)Assess your criminality by reference to other comparable manslaughter cases, or

(b)apply the guideline case for serious violent offending, in a case called

R v Taueki.3

[17]   In cases where manslaughter is founded upon grievous bodily harm offending, where serious injury was an intended consequence, as it is in this case, it is sometimes appropriate to utilise both approaches.4 The final sentence must properly reflect the additional and significant aggravation of death that ensued from the grievous bodily harm inflicted.5

[18]   The sentence imposed must also satisfy the relevant sentencing purposes. In this case these include:6

(a)Holding you accountable for the harm done to Mr Strickland and to the community by your offending.

(b)Denouncing the conduct in which you were involved.

(c)Deterring you and others from committing the same or similar offence.

(d)Protecting the community from you.

(e)Assisting in your rehabilitation and reintegration into society following your eventual release from prison.

[19]I must also have regard to the relevant principles of sentencing, namely:7

(a)The gravity of the offending including the degree of your culpability.

3      R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372, (2005) 21 CRNZ 769.

4      R v Tai [2011] NZCA 598 at [12].

5      Everett v R [2019] NZCA 68.

6      Sentencing Act 2002, s 7(a) and (e)–(h).

7      Sentencing Act 8(a), (b), (e) and (i).

(b)The seriousness of the type of offence in comparison with other types of offences.

(c)The general desirability of consistency with appropriate sentencing levels and other means of dealing with offenders.

(d)Your personal, family, whānau, community and cultural background.

[20]   I will establish a starting point for the sentence following consideration of similar manslaughter sentencings and the factors laid out in the case of Taueki. I then consider the uplifts for your personal aggravating factors such as prior offending,8 and any discounts for personal mitigating factors such as youth, guilty plea, remorse,9 and personal circumstances or background.10

[21]   I turn now to consider the starting point of your sentence. There are a number of aggravating factors present. You inflicted extreme violence on Mr Strickland, repeatedly striking him. You clearly caused serious injury. The attack involved multiple blows to Mr Strickland’s head while he was on the ground. There were multiple attackers, you and Mr Todd. Your victim was vulnerable for much of the attack, as he was quickly knocked to the ground and became unconscious while you and Mr Todd continued to attack him. Mr Strickland did not fight back and was soon rendered unable to defend himself. Additionally, in terms of general aggravating features of the offending, you were subject to an intensive supervision order prior to the offending when you took part on the attack against Mr Strickland. You were in breach of your curfew conditions at the time of the attack. You should not have been out on the street.

[22]   I agree with Crown counsel that this offending falls within band 2 of Taueki, which attracts a sentence of between 5–10 years imprisonment.11 However, an increase for the fact the assault resulted in the death of the victim would bring us into the range of eight to nine years. This is supported by comparable case law. In R v

8      Section, 9(1)(j).

9      Sections 9(2)(a), (b), (f).

10     Section 27.

11     Taueki above n 3, at [38]–[39].

Kulitapa,12 which involved similar offending of multiple offenders manually attacking a person unknown to them, the Court took a starting point of eight years for the defendant Laniviawho, like yourself, joined the assault after it had started.13 As conceded by your counsel, in his written submissions the offending is more serious than that of the case of Mr Kupa-Caudwell in R v Sullivan,14 who stopped participating in the assault part way through and left, and was given a starting point of seven years imprisonment for his offending.15

[23]   Having regard to all of the similar cases that have been referred to me by both counsel and the relevant legal principles, I set the starting point for you at eight years’ imprisonment.

[24]   I now assess your personal aggravating factors, these are matters in respect of which I will uplift the sentence beyond the starting point. You have three previous relevant convictions for violence, those being for common assault in 2019 and two assaults with intent to injure in 2022. Such previous convictions are taken into account as indicators of character and culpability, as showing a need for greater deterrence, and as an indicator of the risk of reoffending.16 Prior offending of a similar type, as is the case here, will carry greater weight than prior offending of a different character.17

[25]   I acknowledge that you have a lesser criminal history than that of your co-offender Mr Todd, for whom I gave an uplift of six months. I therefore give you a lesser uplift of four months, which is in line with your counsel’s submissions.

[26]   I now turn to address the issue of your personal circumstances and personal mitigating factors. I have read the section 27 report, psychiatric report and the pre-sentence report, which detail your background of abuse, deprivation and mental illness. You have little connection with your whakapapa or Te Ao Māori generally. You were influenced by your father, a senior member of the Mongrel Mob. Your father seems to have spent most of your childhood in prison, and so was absent from your

12     R v Kulitapa HC Auckland CRI-2006-024-000487, 21 February 2008.

13 At [12].

14     R v Sullivan HC Wellington CRI-2009-485-086, 10 February 2010.

15     At [43]–[54].

16     Reedy v Police [2015] NZHC 1069 at [19].

17     R v Ward [1976] 1 NZLR 588.

life, yet you still looked up to him and sought to emulate him. The Provision of Advice to Court report noted that you and your family have strong ties to the Mongrel Mob and that the attitudes and beliefs associated with entrenched gang life form an important part of your life.

[27]   You were a witness to the domestic violence your father inflicted on your mother. Physical discipline by your mother, father and brother was the norm for you. You largely fended for yourself from the age of 13.

[28]   You were exposed to the use of methamphetamine at a young age. You are now an alcoholic and have a severe addiction to methamphetamine. After you first started consuming methamphetamine, around the age of 17, your mental health deteriorated. You have since been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. You have medication available to you for your mental health issues but often it seems you choose not to take it. Notwithstanding the fact your medical advisers have explained to you the causative connection between your consumption of alcohol and methamphetamine and your violence, you continue to drink and take drugs.

[29]    It has been noted by counsel in the lead up to your offending you had been in the Mental Health Unit, you had not been taking your medication, you had been abusing drugs and alcohol. These factors certainly will have contributed to your offending. Your failure to take your medication and consumption of drugs and alcohol when you know they are triggers for your violence, limits the discount that can be given for your mental health issues.

[30]   A mitigating factor is your youth. You are at the upper limit of the age that attracts a youth discount, and the gravity of your offending limits the extent of which I can take your youth into account.18 However, I have regard to the fact that the courts have recognised the neurological differences of young offenders, including lack of impulse control and planning ability, as well as their greater potential for rehabilitation than adult offenders.19 You get some discount for your youth which includes the prospect of your rehabilitation. Just how realistic the prospect of rehabilitation is for

18     Churchwood v R [2011] NZCA 531, (2011) 25 CRNZ 446 at [84].

19     Dickey v R [2023] NZCA 2 at [86].

you depends very much on you. The reports indicate that you will need intensive rehabilitation.

[31]   You will need to take whatever opportunities are available to you in prison or following your release from prison. On your release you will need to have the courage to sever the relationship you have with your Mongrel Mob associates. You will also need the courage to give up alcohol and methamphetamine. As the Provision of Advice to Court report notes, if you resume contact with the anti-social people who have previously supported your drug and alcohol consumption, compliance with your medication regime, which is the key to your ongoing rehabilitation, is unlikely. That will ultimately lead to further violence on your part and your consequent incarceration in prison in the years to come.

[32]   Remorse, as both counsel have reminded me, is another factor I am obliged to consider. You were not immediately remorseful, as evidenced by the conversation with your probation officer the day after the attack. However, since then you have expressed some remorse for your offending. That is noted in the s 27, psychiatric and pre-sentence reports. It is not entirely clear the extent to which your remorse is driven by the fact you are sorry for yourself and the situation you now find yourself in for what you did to Mr Strickland. However, you at least now seem to have some appreciation the harm that your actions have caused to both Mr Strickland’s family and indeed your own.

[33]   I accept counsel’s submission that a totality approach for your personal circumstances is required given the complex combination of your schizophrenia, substance abuse, and trauma from your childhood and their connection with your offending. As submitted by counsel, a discount of 40 per cent appropriately recognises these complex circumstances and their mitigatory impact on your actions.

[34]   In relation to your guilty plea, this was entered 13 months after you were charged. The Crown case against you was very strong. There was a valid reason for some of that delay while you waited for a psychiatric report to determine whether you lacked capacity to plead due to insanity. Your guilty plea has saved the criminal justice system time and resources that would have been taken up had you proceeded to trial.

It also spared the family of Mr Strickland some of the trauma that would have otherwise have been associated with that trial. For those matters I am required to give you some credit.20 However, there was still a further delay of six months between you being determined fit to stand trial and your plea of guilty. I have not heard an adequate explanation for that. I therefore consider the proper discount for your guilty plea to be 15 per cent.

[35]   The combination of your guilty plea discount and overall personal circumstances discount results in a deduction of 55  per  cent  or  four  years  and five months.

[36]   Deducting four years and five months from the uplifted sentence of eight years’ and four months’ results in a sentence of three years’ and 11 months’ imprisonment.

[37]   Mr Chadwick, please stand. I sentence you to three years’ and 11 months’ imprisonment for the crime of the manslaughter of Darcy Strickland.

[38]You may stand down.

Churchman J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Napier for Crown

20     Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607 at [45] and [57].