R v Daley - [2020] NZHC 1560

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2018-035-1361

[2020] NZHC 1560

THE QUEEN

v

REX JI TE RANGI DALEY

Hearing: 3 July 2020

Counsel:

G J Burston for Crown O S Winter for Mr Daley

Sentencing:

3 July 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF ELLIS J

[1] Mr Daley, because you were not convicted when you pleaded guilty I need to convict you today on:

(a)one charge of aggravated burglary;

(b)one charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm; and

(c)one charge of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others.

R v DALEY [2020] NZHC 1560 [3 July 2020]

[2] Because the aggravated burglary and the charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm are both what we call strike offences, I have to give you a first strike warning. That warning is: the consequences of any other serious violence conviction you will also be given a written notice that sets out those consequences which also lists the serious violent offences concerns.

[3] So the warning is: if you are convicted of any serious violent offences, other than murder, committed after this warning, and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment, then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release. If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning, then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. That will be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust, and in that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

[4] You will appreciate there are quite a lot of things I need to say and talk about today before I actually get to your sentence.

[5] As you probably know, the maximum penalty for both the aggravated burglary and the grievous bodily harm charges is 14 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the firearm charge is seven years’ imprisonment.

[6] As Mr Burston said this morning, in December last year I indicated that— subject to any further information received by the Court and on the basis that you then entered a guilty plea—the likely end sentence on those charges would be 10 years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment or MPI of five years.

[7] Since then the Court has received further information relevant to sentencing and I will come to that shortly. But it is necessary first to briefly set out the facts of your offending.

Background

[8]The charges relate to events on 2 December 2018.

[9] Your then partner, Tiana Walker-Dahlberg, and her former partner, Mr Francis were in the midst of a custody dispute and tensions between them were high. One of the two victims (Mr Rhodes) was a relative of Mr Francis. The other victim, Ms Nepia, was Mr Rhodes’ partner.

[10] At around 9 pm on that day (and following encounters earlier that day) you, Ms Walker-Dahlberg and her cousin Mr Takamore…

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 Daley

Details

AGLC: R v Daley [2020] NZHC 1560
Case: [2020] NZHC 1560
Decision Date: 3 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Daley was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, where Rex Ji Te Rangi Daley was convicted of aggravated burglary, causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others. The case was presided over by Justice Ellis, who issued sentencing notes detailing the proceedings. The Crown was represented by G J Burston, while Daley was represented by O S Winter. The sentencing took place on 3 July 2020.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address included the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the defendant's personal history, including his mental health and substance abuse issues. The court also had to determine whether a first strike warning should be issued, considering the nature of the offences, and whether a minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed.

Justice Ellis began by outlining the charges against Daley and the need to convict him on each charge. The court then issued a first strike warning, explaining that any future serious violent offences would result in a sentence without parole or early release. The court discussed the maximum penalties for each offence and the starting point for the sentence, which was initially set at 10 years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years. The court took into account the defendant's guilty plea, remorse, and personal factors such as his difficult upbringing, mental health issues, and substance abuse problems. Ultimately, the court decided to allow a further discount of 15 per cent for these factors and did not impose a minimum period of imprisonment, hoping to motivate the defendant to address his issues and turn his life around. The final sentence was eight and a half years' imprisonment, with all sentences running concurrently.

The court's decision reflects the complex nature of sentencing in cases involving serious offences and the need to balance the defendant's personal circumstances with the need to protect the community and provide just deserts for the victims. The court's approach demonstrates a thoughtful and nuanced consideration of the various factors involved in sentencing, ultimately aiming to achieve a balance between punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restorative justice.

Orders