R v Davis - [2013] NZHC 2716

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-057-1382 [2013] NZHC 2716

THE QUEEN

v

DANIEL JAMES DAVIS

Hearing: 18 October 2013

Appearances: K Raftery for Crown
G Newell for Prisoner

Sentence: 18 October 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v DANIEL JAMES DAVIS [2013] NZHC 2716 [18 October 2013]

[1] Mr Davis, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty following a sentence indication hearing to a charge of murder. That charge, as you know, carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Court is also required to impose a minimum term of imprisonment that you must serve before being eligible to apply for parole.

[2] Can I begin these sentencing remarks by acknowledging the presence today of Mr Knibb’s family and friends. This is a very difficult day for them. They confront the end of the criminal justice process. That is the end of a very long series of events for them. It began in July 2012, more than a year ago.

[3] I heard today three victim impact statements read to the Court in a tone that I regard as being both moving and measured. I have also had the benefit of receiving a large number of other victim impact statements from persons closely associated with Mr Knibb’s family. Can I say that reading those statements makes it clear that their loss is a huge one. Mr Knibb was clearly a loving and much loved man. Nothing that this Court does today can ever restore to this family and to Mr Knibb’s friends the loss they suffered in July last year. The sympathy of the Court, however, is with you.

[4] I need now to set out the factual background to this matter, even though I did that during the sentence indication hearing. I will not repeat all of the factual background. I will attach my remarks at the sentence indication hearing to my sentencing notes and they will form part of it. Many of the people present in Court today will also have been present at the sentence indication hearing, so they will already be aware of the factual matrix that led to this charge being laid.

Factual background

[5] The charge to which Mr Davis pleaded guilty arose out of an incident that occurred late on the evening of Friday 27 July 2012. Mr Knibbs was a 66 year old retired man, who lived in a caravan in a campground in a rural area.

[6] On the evening of 27 July, he went to a nearby tavern to socialise with other patrons. There, he drank alcohol and watched sport on a television set in the bar.

When it came time for him to leave at about 11.30 pm, you, Mr Davis, offered to provide him with a lift home because you were concerned that he had consumed too much alcohol to be able to drive safely. The two of you then set off in your vehicle, but a short way down the road,…

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 [2013] NZHC 2716
Case: [2013] NZHC 2716
Decision Date: 18 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Daniel James Davis was convicted of the murder of Stephen John Knibb. The case revolved around a late-night encounter in July 2012, where Davis, under the influence of alcohol, assaulted Knibb, leading to his death. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence, particularly the minimum term of imprisonment Davis must serve before being eligible for parole. The Crown argued for a minimum term of at least 14 years, while Davis's counsel suggested no more than 12 years. The court considered various factors, including the nature of the crime, Davis's intention to commit robbery, and his history of alcohol-related offenses.

The court concluded that while Davis's actions warranted a significant sentence, imposing a minimum term of 17 years would be manifestly unjust. Instead, the court determined that a minimum term of 13 years was appropriate, reflecting the gravity of the offense and the need for community protection. Given Davis's late guilty plea, the court reduced this term to 12 years. The court emphasized the importance of accountability, the impact on Knibb's family, and the societal costs of a lengthy trial. The final sentence of life imprisonment with a 12-year minimum term aimed to balance justice for the victim and rehabilitation opportunities for Davis.

Orders