R v Davis - [2015] NZHC 2289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-485-87 [2015] NZHC 2289

THE QUEEN

v

CHARLES RICHARD DAVIS SEAN MCKAY

Counsel:
H K Goodhew for Crown

P V Paino for Davis
P J Knowsley for McKay

Sentencing:

22 September 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF WILLIAMS J

[1] Charles Davis you appear today for sentence having pleaded guilty on

29 July 2015 to three counts:

(a) wounding with reckless disregard; (b) wounding with intent to injure; and (c) unlawful possession of a firearm.

[2] Sean McKay you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty on the same date to one count of injuring with intent to injure.

[3] You gentlemen and the prosecution have reached an agreement on the factual basis upon which I am to sentence you both. Having presided over the trial myself at
which the leading primary fact witnesses gave evidence and were tested by your

R v DAVIS & ANOR [2015] NZHC 2289 [22 September 2015]

lawyers prior to your guilty pleas being given, I am happy that the agreed factual basis upon which I am to sentence today is sound. It is only necessary for me therefore to summarise the essential agreed elements for the purposes of your sentences.

[4] The two of you were friends and you Mr McKay were temporarily staying at Mr Davis’ home on the night in question. Mr Davis you shared that address with your partner, Melissa Horo, who was originally charged as an accessory in this incident and with your then five year old son. At trial, the Crown consented to Ms Horo’s discharge.

[5] Mr Davis you didn’t know Grayson Manktelow but he was a friend of yours, Mr McKay.

[6] During the early hours of Friday 9 August last year, there were communication exchanges between Mr Manktelow and you Mr McKay in which Mr Manktelow sought payment of a $200 debt apparently for drugs and for living expenses it suggested. There had been considerable delay in repayment and you had offered a larger sum in compensation for that delay. Mr McKay you invited Mr Manktelow to the address where you were staying in order to resolve the issue.

[7] Mr Manktelow eventually arrived with a carload of young men but he went to the door alone and was let into the house. He was wearing a Headhunters’ hoodie at the time and in my view that apparel was not coincidental.

[8] Mr Davis you had a small caliber pistol in your possession at the house. It was loaded with ammunition in a magazine. You had no licence for it. Following the incident, the pistol was never found.

[9] As Mr Manktelow entered the house and walked down the hallway there was yelling between him and you, Mr McKay. Mr Davis you had been asleep but you were woken and then came out into the lounge carrying the pistol. Mr Davis, at some point you punched Mr Manktelow in the head and body striking him with what the agreed statement…

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 Davis

Details

AGLC: R v Davis [2015] NZHC 2289
Case: [2015] NZHC 2289
Decision Date: 22 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Charles Davis and Sean McKay appeared before the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing following their guilty pleas to various charges related to a violent incident. Davis was charged with wounding with reckless disregard, wounding with intent to injure, and unlawful possession of a firearm, while McKay was charged with injuring with intent to injure. The court accepted an agreed factual basis for sentencing, which detailed the events leading to the injuries inflicted upon Grayson Manktelow.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting points and any necessary uplifts or discounts for the charges against Davis and McKay. For Davis, the court considered the use of a firearm and the multiple attacks on Manktelow as aggravating factors. Conversely, Davis's steps towards rehabilitation and his guilty plea were mitigating factors. For McKay, the court acknowledged his limited involvement but considered the multiple attacker element and his criminal history as aggravating factors, while his guilty plea and compliance with bail conditions were mitigating.

In its reasoning, the court sentenced Davis to three years and seven months in imprisonment, with concurrent terms for the other charges, and ordered him to pay reparations to the victim. The court also directed that Davis's $1,000 contribution be forwarded to Manktelow. For McKay, the court imposed a sentence of six months' home detention, reflecting his lesser role in the incident and his efforts to address his addiction issues.

The final orders included Davis's imprisonment terms and the reparation payment, while McKay was sentenced to six months' home detention with special conditions, emphasizing the need for addiction treatment. The court's decision balanced the severity of the offenses with the defendants' potential for rehabilitation and their demonstrated remorse.

Orders