R v Day - [2014] NZHC 3412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-042-001827 [2014] NZHC 3412

THE QUEEN

V

KIRKLAND JOHN DAY

Counsel:
J M Webber and S K O'Donoghue for Crown

A J D Bamford and L S B Acland for Prisoner

Sentencing:

7 November 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF WILLIAMS J

[1] Kirkland John Day you appear before me to be sentenced for the manslaughter of Carl Joblin, a jury of your peers having found you guilty of that offence in September this year.

[2] It is no easy task to pass sentence in a case such as this Mr Day. The life of a man was needlessly taken. A man with a family, children and prospects. A peacemaker in the context of the events that led to his death. Nothing I say in sentencing today can bring him back. But I must pass sentence on you Mr Day – publicly and before your community. That community includes your own grieving family and the grieving family of Carl Joblin. That family has lost a son forever, and in a sense your family loses a son too for the period of your incarceration.

[3] I must mark on behalf of all, the seriousness of your offending – the needless and grisly taking of a human life, the terrible toll taken through destructive lifestyles such as the one you led over that period. The terrible toll such lifestyles can take on and in our communities. But it is not my job to wreak revenge on behalf of
Mr Joblin’s family, even if that were possible. Rather, it’s my job to find a sentence

R v DAY (SENTENCING NOTES) [2014] NZHC 3412 [7 November 2014]

that fits the seriousness of your offence and your circumstances as the offender – both of those things – both the terrible offence and your own personal circumstances. That requires a sentence that reflects the stern judgement of your community on your actions Mr Day – it must. But also the hope of the community that you will change in due course. This is the balance today that I must strike in passing sentence on you.

[4] I acknowledge also the victim impact statements of Veronica Greenslade, Kylee Joblin read by Lauren Scott and Cheena-Michellene Windleburn, and you heard two of those read out in open court today. They attest to the pain and suffering you caused not just to Carl Joblin himself but to those who were close to him. They reflect the bewilderment of those survivors Mr Day, and their understandable anger at you. You must own your central role in creating that sense in those survivors of bewilderment and anger – you must own that.

[5] On the evening of 4 August 2013, you stabbed Carl Joblin several times in the stomach, chest and arm in an altercation at your residence in Nelson. The incisions punctured major organs and severed his aorta, wounds which he could not survive and he died at the scene.

[6] The altercation…

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 Day

Details

AGLC: R v Day [2014] NZHC 3412
Case: [2014] NZHC 3412
Decision Date: 7 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Day involved the sentencing of Kirkland John Day, who was found guilty of the manslaughter of Carl Joblin. The incident occurred on 4 August 2013, when Day stabbed Joblin multiple times during an altercation at Day's residence in Nelson. The altercation was preceded by a day of drinking and smoking cannabis and was triggered by an unfortunate sequence of events. Day had a panic attack after his electric guitar was broken during the altercation, and he claimed to have no recollection of the stabbing incident. However, psychiatric evidence confirmed that Day had an anxiety disorder and had suffered panic attacks in the past.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Day's crime, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and Day's personal circumstances. The court acknowledged the victim impact statements of Joblin's family and friends, which attested to the pain and suffering caused by Day's actions. The court also considered Day's offer to plead guilty to manslaughter, his remorse, and his prospects for rehabilitation.

The court found that Day's reduced levels of intention due to the panic attack warranted a starting point of nine years' imprisonment. However, the court also considered Day's offer to plead guilty, his remorse, and his prospects for rehabilitation, and discounted the starting point by two years and six months, respectively. The court decided against setting a minimum period of imprisonment, preferring to leave the decision to the Parole Board.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Day to six and a half years' imprisonment for the manslaughter of Carl Joblin. The court acknowledged Day's limited past history of offending and his potential for rehabilitation, and encouraged him to gain victory over his alcohol addiction. The court also recognised the support of Day's family, which would be important for his rehabilitation.

Orders