R v Daveron - [2024] NZHC 1658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CRI-2022-091-1925

[2024] NZHC 1658

THE KING

v

ELIJAH DAVERON

Hearing: 21 June 2024

Appearances:

A J Brosnan for Crown S J Gill for Defendant

Judgment:

21 June 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF GRICE J

Introduction

[1] Mr Daveron today I sentence you following a jury finding you guilty on 15 April 2024 on a charge of attempted murder.1 I now set out the background facts that came out at that trial.

The offending

[2] The events occurred on 31 October 2021. The victim had been contacted by a Ms May who lured him to a bar in the Mana area. The messages exchanged between the victim and Ms May suggest that the victim was initially wary of meeting with her as he had heard that rumours were circulating about him being responsible for a recent

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 173 — maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

R v DAVERON (SENTENCING) [2024] NZHC 1658 [21 June 2024]

shooting toward Ms May’s partner, Mr Coker. Ms May lied saying she did not know anything about that and reassured the victim she had not heard the rumours and she had not seen Mr Coker recently.

[3] The victim arrived at the meeting place and Ms May suggested they drive to the Camborne Jet Ski Club to consume drugs. The victim agreed and followed her, driving his vehicle in convoy behind her. When they arrived at the carpark, they each parked their vehicles and Ms May joined the victim in his vehicle, sitting in the front passenger seat.

[4] At the same time, Mr Daveron, Mr Coker, and Mr Tua were travelling from Kapiti to the carpark. They were in contact with Ms May to coordinate their movements. Mr Coker sent his partner, Ms May, a text message to say that they were travelling to the carpark, asking her to identify to him the victim’s car. Mr Daveron, Mr Coker, and Mr Tua arrived at the Jet Ski carpark just moments behind the victim and Ms May. It was a fine Sunday afternoon and members of the public were nearby.

[5] The victim did not know anything about Ms May contacting her partner Mr Coker and the others in the car.

[6] When Mr Daveron, Mr Coker and Mr Tua got to the carpark, they parked near the victim’s car. Mr Daveron got out of the car. He was armed with a .22 calibre firearm and opened the rear driver’s side door of the victim’s vehicle. Mr Daveron then fired a total of three .22 calibre bullets at the victim. One went past the victim’s head, through the front passenger visor out the front windscreen, and the two other bullets entered the victim’s torso and lower back area.

[7] Mr Daveron then returned to the vehicle, where Mr Coker and Mr Tua were still seated, and they drove away at speed towards Pāuatahanui. Ms May left…

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 Daveron

Details

AGLC: R v Daveron [2024] NZHC 1658
Case: [2024] NZHC 1658
Decision Date: 21 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, R v Daveron involved sentencing for an attempted murder conviction. The defendant, Elijah Daveron, was found guilty by a jury on 15 April 2024 of attempted murder following an incident on 31 October 2021, where he shot the victim three times with a.22 calibre firearm. The victim suffered serious injuries but survived. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence based on the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offence and the defendant's personal circumstances.

The court identified several aggravating features of the offence, including premeditation, the use of a weapon, the intent to cause serious injury, and acting in revenge. The victim's serious injuries, which required emergency surgery, further aggravated the offence. The Crown argued for a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment, while the defence suggested 10 years. After considering the case law and the facts, the court settled on an 11-year starting point.

The court also evaluated personal factors, including the defendant's criminal history, cultural background, upbringing, and addiction issues. The pre-sentence reports highlighted Daveron's challenging upbringing, exposure to violence, and substance abuse, which contributed to his offending. The court acknowledged these factors, awarding a 15% discount. The Crown argued for a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 50%, citing the defendant's high risk of reoffending and the public nature of the offence. However, the court determined that the length of the sentence itself sufficiently addressed the purposes of deterrence and denunciation, and thus did not impose an MPI.

Ultimately, the court sentenced Daveron to nine years and four months in imprisonment. While the court intended to impose a firearm prohibition order, it was unable to do so due to a legal technicality.

Orders