Legal Research
Cases
R v Champion

R v Champion

Case [2023] NZHC 2949 20 October 2023

Psychological Factors

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2022-012-1639

[2023] NZHC 2949

THE KING

v

BRODIE GRAHAM CHAMPION

Hearing: 20 October 2023

Appearances:

C E Power for Crown

S A Saunderson-Warner for Defendant

Judgment:

20 October 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Brodie Champion, you are here for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter.1

The offending

[2] The facts of the offending which led to this charge are as follows. You live in the small town of Momona, near Dunedin airport, as did the victim, Grant Jopson. In early October 2022 you were involved in a road rage incident near Mosgiel and mistakenly believed the victim’s son was driving the other vehicle involved. You had an exchange with the victim’s partner, Brenda Gamble, on 14 October 2022, where

1 Pursuant to s 61 Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

R v CHAMPION [2023] NZHC 2949 [20 October 2023]

you made the allegation, and she told you her son had not been involved. You swore at her and left her upset.

[3] When the victim, Grant Jopson, heard about this exchange, he and his son Daniel walked over to your house to confront you. When you saw them coming, you ran inside to the kitchen and grabbed a 20 cm kitchen knife from one of the drawers and went back outside. The victim accused you of threatening his partner and you and he became involved in a heated argument over the road rage incident.

[4] The victim told you you had it wrong and it was not his son who was involved. He also told you to put down the knife, as did his son. The brother of the victim and another female arrived on the scene. The brother told the victim to “fuck off out of it, get out of it”. You backed up during the altercation moving to a corner of the house, and you waved the knife in front of you. The victim picked up an aluminium broom and stood holding it in front of you. You made swiping and stabbing motions with the knife. He swung the broom at you and hit you and during this, the head of the broom fell off. You continued to swing the knife and the victim’s son picked up a terracotta pot and threw it at you. It hit you and broke.

[5] You backed up further into the property and ended up in a corner and the victim and his son walked towards you. At this stage, they were unarmed. You had your back to the victim, who was yelling at you. You then turned around, swinging the knife wildly and lunged forward two or three times with the knife at the victim. One of the lunges got the victim in the stomach. The victim then moved a short distance away and collapsed. You and others phoned for an ambulance. The victim died of a single stab wound…

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 Champion

Details

AGLC: R v Champion [2023] NZHC 2949
Case: [2023] NZHC 2949
Decision Date: 20 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brodie Graham Champion appeared before the High Court of New Zealand at Dunedin for sentencing after pleading guilty to manslaughter. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for Champion, weighing the principles of accountability, deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation. The case involved a road rage incident that escalated into a fatal confrontation with the victim, Grant Jopson. The victim's family provided powerful victim impact statements, highlighting the profound loss and suffering caused by the incident.

The court considered various factors in determining the sentence, including Champion's guilty plea, his young age, his troubled background, and his mental health issues, which included PTSD and severe depression. The court accepted that Champion had acted out of character and was deeply remorseful. Champion's background and mental health issues warranted a significant discount, but the court also had to consider the need for deterrence and denunciation. After applying the relevant discounts, the court arrived at a sentence of 24 months, which technically allowed for home detention, though the court did not indicate a preference.

The primary issue before the court was whether home detention was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the need for accountability. The Crown argued against home detention, emphasizing the need for deterrence and denunciation, while Champion's lawyer argued for home detention, citing Champion's prospects for rehabilitation and his compliance with bail conditions. After careful consideration, the court decided that imprisonment was necessary to meet the purposes of sentencing, despite acknowledging the potential difficulties Champion might face in prison.

The court sentenced Champion to two years' imprisonment, with a special condition to be imposed upon his release, as proposed in the pre-sentence report. The decision aimed to balance the need for accountability and deterrence with Champion's vulnerability and prospects for rehabilitation.

Orders