R v Champion
[2023] NZHC 2949
•20 October 2023
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 to his abdomen.
[6] When you were examined by a doctor afterwards, you were found to have parallel lines of red bruising on your back, a laceration on your left hand and an area of bruising on your left buttock.
Victim impact statements
[7] Before I start on the sentencing exercise, I want to acknowledge the family of the victim and the powerful victim impact statements they have given. Because, while
much of the sentencing exercise focuses on you, it must never be forgotten that a life has been lost, and lives derailed, as a consequence of what happened on 15 October last year.
[8] The first was from Mr Jopson’s mother, Careen Davies. She has requested it remain private and not be read out in Court. I have read it, however, and can say, no mother should ever experience what she has experienced.
[9] Then there is one from Brenda Gamble, Mr Jopson’s partner. She updated it from her earlier victim impact statement. She has lost her partner of 33 years, her friend, and the father and mate of their son, Daniel. She says her partner was a good guy who would have done anything for anyone but was fiercely protective of his family. She says he was “the man who was there for so many people has gone”. She talks of her fragility and of suffering from PTSD as she tries to face the world. She has lost all her plans for the future including her plans for travel. She will never understand why this happened.
[10] Brenda’s sister, Joanne Gamble, has also provided a victim impact statement. The great sense of loss of her brother-in-law is powerfully conveyed throughout it. As she says, nobody should have died that day. Like all Mr Jopson’s family, she has been fundamentally changed by this.
[11] Paul Jopson, Grant Jopson’s brother, also provided me with a victim impact statement, but asked it not be read out. But as a witness to his brother’s death, it has understandably had a devastating impact on him.
[12] Mr Jopson’s son, Daniel, in his victim impact statement, says his father was his best friend and his loss has put him into a depressive state. He quit his job after his father’s death and has suffered from the loss of income. He struggles to sleep as he thinks about his father and what the future will be like without him.
[13] There is also a statement from Glenda Gamble’s brother, Les. He says Mr Jopson was a hardworking, loyal friend who was always doing things for those
around him. The stress, grief and anger, weighs heavily on him and all his family, and his health has been affected. He says the world is a poorer place without Grant there.
Starting point
[14] In sentencing you today I have had regard to the principles in the Sentencing Act. Relevantly, these include; holding you accountable for the harm done to the victim and to the community by your offending; promoting in you a sense of responsibility for, and an acknowledgment of, that harm; denouncing the conduct in which you were involved; deterring you and others from committing the same or a similar offences, but also, to the extent it is appropriate to do so, assisting in your rehabilitation and reintegration.
[15] I gave you a sentencing indication on 21 August 2023. I will not repeat my discussion of all the factors which led to the starting point. They are set out in full in that decision.
[16] In summary, though, after comparing your case with other cases, I accepted that there were elements of self-defence involved, although not sufficient to constitute a full defence to the charge. I accepted that you were backed into a corner when you swung the knife wildly, and in doing so, you pierced the victim’s abdomen. However, you also called the ambulance, remained on the scene and were co-operative with police. I took a starting point of five years and six months’ imprisonment after comparing it with a range of cases where starting points of four years six months through to five years six months were involved.2
[17] I then applied a range of discounts which were, in total, somewhere between the discounts of the Crown and the discounts proposed by your lawyer. First, I accepted that you were entitled to a 25 per cent discount for your guilty plea, because you accepted full responsibility for your actions from the outset. I gave you a 12 per cent discount for youth.
2 Wharerau v R [2015] NZCA 299; R v Witehira [2021] NZHC 678; R v Harnwell [2021] NZHC 3409 and R v Iraia [2020] NZHC 1084.
[18] I found the psychological report prepared by Mr Shirley very valuable. In it, he outlined your mental health history, saying you came from an unstable family background, characterised by parental separation, chronic beatings by your parents, alleged sexual abuse, and physical and emotional neglect by your drug-dependent mother. He explained you met the diagnosis for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and he considers that would have disposed you to having a more fearful experience when confronted on that day than would a person without such abusive childhood experience. I accepted there was a link between your PTSD and this offending.
[19] You were also assessed as being severely clinically depressed on both interviews, although you had improved slightly between the first and second interview. The psychologist also considered you suffer from extreme anxiety and your acute depression has led to past suicide attempts.
[20] I also had regard to the many thoughtful letters I had from people in the community who knew you. As I said in the sentencing indication, those letters gave me a real insight into the adversity you had overcome and the potential impact that a sentence of imprisonment would have on you. The letters almost universally referred to you never being violent and being deeply remorseful for what has happened. Your mother confirmed that you had had trauma throughout your childhood and that you suffered head injuries, and yet you had been supportive of her and active in the community, for example, bagging up food for the local food bank. She reinforced the psychologist’s opinion that the mistreatment and assaults you had experienced in your life make you overreact to a perceived threat in a way that people who have not had your life experience would not behave.
[21] The other letters similarly spoke of you being a role model and someone who was not known for losing their cool or losing self-control. You are described as hardworking, reliable, trustworthy and the kind of person who would step in and break up a fight. They all speak of your remorse and regret. In short, they all speak of a good person who acted entirely out of character.
[22] I considered the psychological assessment was compelling. It explained why your background experience and mental health issues contributed to your reaction to
the circumstances you found yourself in that day, and I decided a 17 per cent discount for your background and identified mental health issues was appropriate.
[23] I also accept that you are truly remorseful, with you telling the pre-sentence report writer that you “wished they had killed me instead”. As I have said, the character references speak of your deep remorse and regret at what happened, and I deducted a further five percent for remorse.
[24] I also gave you a five per cent discount for good character. In doing that, I noted you have not come from a privileged upbringing, quite the opposite, and yet you resisted the negative influences on you including your brother’s association with the Mongrel Mob. Ms Chaney reports that you are someone, who with appropriate support, could “achieve great things in our society”. In my view, the fact you have not succumbed to all the negative influences around you, but instead were a positive support for your mother through all the difficulties she faced, spoke highly of your character which is why I gave you a five per cent discount.
[25] From the starting point of five years six months’ imprisonment, I reached an end sentence of 24 months which meant that home detention was technically available, although I did not indicate any view on what was appropriate.
[26] Your lawyer has suggested today that a further deduction is available for the time you have spent on bail. However, while your bail conditions were restrictive, I do not consider they were unduly so. I am also mindful of the comment I made at the sentencing indication which is that it is important that discounts do not reach a point where they fail to fairly reflect the gravity of the offending and the sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation. I consider the discounts I have already indicated are all that are reasonably available in the circumstances of this case.
Should home detention be available?
[27] So, I now move on to the question which has been the focus of submissions today. That is whether your sentence should be commuted to one of home detention. The lawyers have cited a number of decisions which have considered this issue. A number of them involve one punch manslaughter cases with young offenders who
received sentences of home detention.3 I accept that these were all assaults without weapons which led to a death, and can be categorised as less serious than the present offending. In R v Feleti, the offender threw a small metal object from the factory floor at the victim which killed him.4 However, the Judge in that case accepted it was comparable to a one punch manslaughter case because it was a small item not intended to seriously hurt the victim. I accept that an attack with a knife is different.
[28] There are four cases which have been referred to me which involve scenarios where there was a stabbing or shooting and where home detention was imposed.5 These all occurred in the context of family violence where the victim had previously perpetrated violence against the offender. However, I accept some involved quite serious violence. For example, in R v Rose, the victim was stabbed in the upper back during a verbal argument.6
[29] However, ultimately the question of whether home detention should be granted is not a matter of comparing the facts of different cases, but assessing what sentence best meets the principles and purposes of sentencing and is the least restrictive sentence which is appropriate in the circumstances.
[30] Here, the Crown submits the offending is too serious to justify a sentence of home detention and that the purposes and principles of deterrence, denunciation and accountability for harm done, mean that a sentence of imprisonment must be imposed. Mr Power also says that you have not spent time in custody as has occurred in some of the cases, and the fact you have not been working, means that being at home is really a continuation of your current life and would not, therefore, meet the principles of denunciation and deterrence. While he acknowledges you are fearful of prison, he says there is no reason to think you cannot be cared for appropriately in that environment.
3 R v Hakopa [2020] NZHC 2763; R v Kokiri [2019] NZHC 501; R v Larsen [2020] NZHC 237; R v Nepia [2019] NZHC 1932; R v Unusa [2020] NZHC 3139 and R v Tarawa [2018] NZHC 3205.
4 R v Feleti [2019] NZHC 94.
5 R v Rose [2017] NZHC 1488, R v Tagatauli [2016] NZHC 757, R v Kirk [2016] NZHC 1249, and
R v Ruddelle [2020] NZHC 1983, [2021] 3 NZLR 505.
6 R v Rose, above n 5.
[31] Your lawyer says, however, that there are many factors in this case that suggest you have strong prospects of rehabilitation and home detention is the most appropriate sentence. These include your youth and good character, the fact you are assessed at being at a low risk of reoffending, the fact you took immediate responsibility for your offending, the fact drugs and alcohol did not feature in the offending, the fact you have PTSD which pre-disposed you to having a more fearful experience when confronted than a person who did not, and the fact that you had been compliant with all bail conditions which she says shows you take the proceedings seriously and would comply with restrictions placed on your movements.
[32] She suggests your sentence could be combined with a sentence of community service to provide for further accountability for the harm done.
Result
[33] This is an extremely difficult decision. I know how angry, hurt and broken Grant Jopson’s family is. I am sure they see that nothing less than a prison sentence would be appropriate. I also accept that a term of imprisonment would not serve a rehabilitative purpose, and for someone as vulnerable as you, could prove extremely difficult. However, in my view, it is appropriate that you do serve a sentence of imprisonment to account for the harm done and to deter others from resorting to weapons in such situations.
[34] In short, I am unable, despite all the concerns your lawyer has raised, to see that a sentence of less than imprisonment is warranted. While I accept you will find prison difficult, the prison is required to take account of your mental health vulnerabilities and to take steps to protect you accordingly.
[35]Mr Champion, would you please stand.
[36] On the charge of manslaughter, you are sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. On your release, I impose a special condition as proposed in the pre-sentence report.
[37]You may stand down.
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Dunedin
Copy to:
S A Saunderson-Warner, Barrister, Dunedin
26
14
0