R v Daniels - [2017] NZHC 2805

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2017-019-989 [2017] NZHC 2805

THE QUEEN

v

COLLEEN KATHLEEN DANIELS

Hearing: 15 November 2017

Counsel:

R G Douch for Crown
M Sturm for Prisoner

Judgment:

15 November 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

R v DANIELS [2017] NZHC 2805 [15 November 2017]

[1] Ms Daniels, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of arson. The maximum penalty for arson is 14 years’ imprisonment.

Summary of facts

[2] The following is based on the summary of facts to which you have pleaded guilty.

[3] On Thursday 26 January 2017, you and the victim, James Meighan, travelled to Auckland together. After visiting a friend and doing some shopping, you left Auckland and Mr Meighan asked you to drive so that he could drink beers in the passenger’s seat. You arrived home at about 2.00 pm. You had some beers together. Mr Meighan lay down on the couch to watch TV and drifted off to sleep. While he was sleeping, you went into one of the bedrooms and deliberately set it on fire. You then locked the back door, which is used as the main entry and exit point for the house, and placed the key inside your pocket. You then returned to the lounge and woke the victim and began yelling, “I’m going to burn the fucking house down”. Mr Meighan attempted to stomp out a fire that was burning under the dining table and, at that point, noticed more flames and smoke down the hallway. The fire then increased with severity and Mr Meighan knew he had to get out. He tried the door handle, to find it was locked and the key missing. He hurriedly searched for the other key. You then took the door key from your pocket, unlocked the door and you and the victim went outside.

Personal circumstances

[4] In terms of your personal circumstances, I have the benefit of a PAC report and psychiatric reports.

[5] Ms Daniels, you are a 53-year-old single Maori woman of Tuhoi. You had a brief marriage but have been separated from your husband for about 30 years now. You have four adult children. Prior to your offending, you were living with the victim and had been his caregiver for about eight months. You have been a sickness beneficiary since 2012.

[6] You attended mainstream schooling and you describe your academic performance as average. It does not appear that you have any learning difficulties or that you required special assistance at school. When employed it has been, for the most part, manual-type work, though, at the age of 43, you completed a certificate in mental health. You have worked as a community support worker in respite homes and hospitals. But you have been unemployed at least since 2014, when you described having a mental breakdown.

[7] You are not well. You have been receiving treatment for hypertension since

2008 and…

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 Daniels

Details

AGLC: R v Daniels [2017] NZHC 2805
Case: [2017] NZHC 2805
Decision Date: 15 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Colleen Kathleen Daniels, the defendant was convicted of arson and sentenced by Whata J in the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry. Ms Daniels set fire to her partner's home while he was asleep, leading to the total destruction of the house and significant emotional and material loss for the victim. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence considering the defendant's personal circumstances, including her history of mental health issues, substance abuse, and a difficult upbringing.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence based on the severity of the crime and applicable precedents, as well as assessing the mitigating factors such as the defendant's remorse, her offer to engage in restorative justice, and her mental health conditions. The court had to balance these factors against the need for denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public.

The court reasoned that while the crime was serious, there was no clear evidence of high levels of premeditation, and the defendant's actions might have been influenced by her mental health issues. The court adopted a starting point of five years based on comparable cases and applied a combined discount of 33% for genuine remorse, a difficult upbringing, and mental health issues, resulting in a sentence of three years and four months. The court rejected the Crown's request for a minimum sentence, considering the defendant's remorse and the manageability of her mental health issues.

The final order of the court was that Ms Daniels be sentenced to three years and four months' imprisonment for the charge of arson.

Orders