Legal Research
Cases
R v Chase

R v Chase

Case [2018] NZHC 3332 14 December 2018

Personal Circumstances

Remorse

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2017-063-003251

[2018] NZHC 3332

THE QUEEN

v

DANIEL GEORGE CHASE WHAKAPUMATANGA CLARKE CODY PAUL GRIFFIN

Hearing: 14 December 2018

Counsel:

A J Gordon and C Harvey for Crown W Lawson for Chase

M A Simpkins for Clarke
J D Munro and D S Niven for Griffin

Judgment:

14 December 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF KATZ J

Solicitors:Gordon Pilditch, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Rotorua W Lawson, Lance Lawson, Rotorua
M A Simpkins, Lance Lawson, Rotorua

Counsel: J M Munro, Barrister, Auckland
D S Niven, Barrister, Sentinel Chambers, Auckland

R v CHASE, CLARKE & GRIFFIN [2018] NZHC 3332 [14 December 2018]

Introduction

[1] Mr Clarke, Mr Chase and Mr Griffin, after a jury trial before me, you were each found guilty of aggravated robbery.1 Mr Clarke, you were also found guilty of murdering Scott Henry during the course of that robbery.2 Mr Griffin, you were found guilty of Mr Henry’s manslaughter.3

[2] I acknowledge at the outset the presence of Mr Henry’s family here in Court today, and the profound loss that you have suffered. Mr Henry was clearly a very much-loved partner, father, son, brother and friend.

Facts

[3] Mr Henry lived in a converted shed on a rural property just outside of Taupō, with his partner and adult son.

[4] Mr Clarke, Mr Chase and Mr Griffin—the three of you planned to, and did, carry out an armed robbery at that property on the evening of 20 July 2017. Your aim was to steal drugs and money from Mr Henry.

[5] Prior to the robbery, Mr Griffin picked up three firearms, including a shotgun that he had stored at a friend’s house, together with some shotgun shells. Mr Griffin and Mr Chase then picked up a female associate. You wanted her to join you because she knew where Mr Henry lived.

[6] At a lookout just outside of Taupō, Mr Griffin stopped the vehicle. Mr Clarke was already at that meeting point, and got into the back of the car.

[7] The vehicle carried on driving towards Kinloch, pulling over in a layby just past the Kinloch turnoff. The three of you got out and removed your Mongrel Mob gang patches. When you got back into the car, Mr Clarke was holding the shotgun, which he had presumably retrieved from the boot of the car. From this point onwards, at the latest, all three of you were aware that a firearm was going to be involved in the

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 235(c) and s 66. The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 167(d) and 172. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 171 and 177. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

robbery. I am satisfied that Mr Clarke and Mr Griffin both knew that the firearm was loaded.

[8] When you arrived at the property, it was dark, raining, and there…

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 Chase

Details

AGLC: R v Chase [2018] NZHC 3332
Case: [2018] NZHC 3332
Decision Date: 14 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chase was heard in the High Court of New Zealand Rotorua Registry. Three defendants, Mr Clarke, Mr Chase, and Mr Griffin, were found guilty of aggravated robbery, with Mr Clarke additionally found guilty of murder and Mr Griffin of manslaughter. The defendants had planned and executed an armed robbery at Mr Henry's property, during which Mr Henry was fatally shot. The court identified several aggravating features of the offending, including the use of a weapon, actual violence used, premeditation, multiple defendants, unlawful entry into a dwelling place at night, detention of Mr Henry’s partner, property stolen, and the serious victim impact resulting from the offending.

The court sentenced Mr Chase to eight years and one month's imprisonment on the charge of aggravated robbery, with a minimum non-parole period of four years and two weeks' imprisonment. The court found that, while Mr Chase did not foresee Mr Henry being shot and injured, he must have appreciated at least a risk of harm occurring. Mr Griffin was sentenced to ten years and nine months' imprisonment on the charge of manslaughter, with a concurrent term of eight years and six months' imprisonment for aggravated robbery. The court ordered that Mr Griffin serve his sentence without parole as required by the three strikes regime. Lastly, Mr Clarke was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years, and a concurrent term of nine years' imprisonment for aggravated robbery. The court found that the circumstances of Mr Clarke's offending warranted a minimum period of at least 15 years, and that a 17-year minimum period would not be manifestly unjust.

Orders