R v Davies - [2020] NZHC 903

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2019-020-420

[2020] NZHC 903

THE QUEEN

v

VAUGHAN ROBERT DAVIES

Hearing: 16-20 March 2020

Appearances:

J E Rielly for the Crown E J Forster for Mr Davies

Date:

30 April 2020

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GRICE J

Overview

[1] Mr Davies you appear for sentencing having been found guilty following a trial by jury on a charge of manslaughter.1 The jury returned its verdict on 20 March 2020. Following that a first strike warning was given.

[2]The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment.2

[3] I am going to now explain my reasoning for the sentence I propose imposing on you.

1 This decision was delivered orally on 30 April 2020. The written form has been edited and footnoted before distribution.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 177(1).

R v DAVIES [2020] NZHC 903 [30 April 2020]

Facts

[4] The facts have been outlined by both Mr Forster on your behalf and Ms Rielly on behalf of the Crown. I accept the summary of facts that has been put forward by the Crown. I heard the evidence at the trial and consider that the summary by the Crown is an accurate reflection of what happened that night.3

[5] You socialised with the deceased, his son and others for a period of hours on the night prior to the incident that gave rise to the deceased’s death. He died in the early hours of the morning. Alcohol and methamphetamine had been consumed by all.

[6] In my view on the evidence there was no conflict between you and the deceased or anyone else which had occurred that night. It also appears Mr Davies that during the interview the probation officer you told her that there had never been any issues between you and the deceased in the past. Although you commented in your trial that there had been.

[7] After consuming a significant amount of alcohol and methamphetamine you went for a walk and visited a friend. You consumed more alcohol of a different type there but appeared to her to be in good spirits. You then returned home and met your son in the driveway. He reported that his tobacco was missing.

[8] You then followed your son over to the deceased’s house across the road. Your son remonstrated with the deceased and his friend over the missing tobacco. You approached the group of the three young men and requested in an angry voice that your son’s smokes should be returned. You then stabbed the deceased in the upper left torso causing a 13 cm deep wound that pierced the deceased’s heart. This wound caused the deceased’s death. You left the deceased’s address without checking how he was. You knew he had been stabbed. Shortly after that you fled from your home to avoid the police.

3 The incident occurred on 8 February 2019.

[9] On all witness accounts of what occurred at the time…

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 Davies

Details

AGLC: R v Davies [2020] NZHC 903
Case: [2020] NZHC 903
Decision Date: 30 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Napier Registry, Vaughan Robert Davies was sentenced for manslaughter following a trial where he was found guilty. The defendant had stabbed the deceased during an altercation over missing tobacco, leading to the deceased's death. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the offence, including the defendant's consumption of alcohol and methamphetamine, which influenced his aggressive behaviour. The victim's family provided impactful victim impact statements, highlighting the profound loss they experienced.

The legal issues revolved around determining an appropriate sentence within the maximum penalty of life imprisonment, considering the defendant's culpability, the circumstances of the offence, and the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The court assessed the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's personal factors, including his ill health and prior convictions, and his remorse and acceptance of responsibility.

Grice J, the sentencing judge, concluded that the offence was serious due to the spontaneity of the act, the use of a weapon on a vulnerable and unarmed victim, and the defendant's voluntary consumption of substances that led to his violent behaviour. The judge considered various cases to determine a starting point for sentencing and settled on six and a half years' imprisonment. The court applied discounts for the defendant's ill health and his early indication of a guilty plea to manslaughter, resulting in a final sentence of four years and two months' imprisonment.

The final orders of the court reflect the sentence imposed, where the defendant, Vaughan Robert Davies, was sentenced to four years and two months' imprisonment for the charge of manslaughter. The sentencing remarks underscore the gravity of the offence and the considerations that led to the final sentence, balancing the need for accountability and deterrence with the personal circumstances of the defendant.

Orders