R v Dodds - [2024] NZHC 871

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-090-1966

[2024] NZHC 871

THE KING

v

DONNA MAY DODDS

Hearing: 19 April 2024

Appearances:

C Purdon for Crown

G Burns for Defendant

Sentence:

19 April 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors/counsel:
Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland G Burns, Auckland

R v DODDS [2024] NZHC 871 [19 April 2024]

[1] Mrs Dodds, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice.1 The maximum penalty for that offence is seven years imprisonment.

[2] You entered your guilty plea after I gave you a sentence indication on 20 February 2024 and that indication is going to, will be annexed to, and form part of, these sentencing remarks.

Background

[3] You pleaded guilty on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. This recorded that you are the mother of Mr Ethan Dodds who, together with Mr Julius Te Hivaka, has now been found guilty by a jury on a charge of murdering Mr Ben McIntosh, Benjamin McIntosh on the morning of 3 June 2022. The charge against you was laid because of an attempt that you made to mislead the police by giving them false information regarding the whereabouts, your son’s whereabouts on the day that Mr McIntosh was shot and fatally injured.

[4] The incident that led to Mr McIntosh’s death occurred after your son and Mr Te Hivaka arranged by text message to meet with Mr McIntosh at a park in Glen Eden early on the morning of 3 June 2022. The pretext for the meeting was that your son and Mr Te Hivaka wanted to purchase drugs from Mr McIntosh, who was a low- level drug dealer.

[5] Prior to going to the park to meet up with Mr McIntosh, your son and Mr Te Hivaka were at your house for a period of some hours. They left the address in a Ford Territory motor vehicle belonging to another of your sons. Your son Ethan was driving the vehicle and Mr Te Hivaka was in the passenger seat.

[6] At about 7.27 am, your son and Mr Te Hivaka arrived at the park where Mr Te Hivaka had arranged to meet with Mr McIntosh. When Mr McIntosh arrived approximately 20 minutes later Mr Te Hivaka got into the front seat of Mr McIntosh’s vehicle. The evidence at trial disclosed that your son got out of the vehicle a short

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 117(e).

time later and went to the rear of Mr McIntosh’s vehicle. He was carrying a .22 calibre firearm that had a bullet in the chamber. He had brought that weapon with him from your house. An exchange then occurred between your son and Mr McIntosh. The Crown case at trial, which the jury clearly accepted, was that it occurred in carrying out a plan by your son and Mr Te Hivaka to…

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 Dodds

Details

AGLC: R v Dodds [2024] NZHC 871
Case: [2024] NZHC 871
Decision Date: 19 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Donna May Dodds pleaded guilty to wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice by providing false information to the police regarding her son Ethan Dodds' whereabouts on the day he fatally shot Benjamin McIntosh. The court considered the appropriate sentence for this premeditated offence which aimed to obstruct the investigation into McIntosh's death. The court found that a starting point of 18 months imprisonment was appropriate, with an uplift of three months due to Dodds' previous conviction for a similar offence. A discount of three months was applied for Dodds' guilty plea, resulting in a sentence indication of 18 months imprisonment.

The court considered various mitigating factors, including Dodds' good work history, the trauma of losing her husband to cancer, and her protective nature towards her children. The court also noted Dodds' expressed remorse, though it was partially negated by her attempts to minimise her culpability. The court found that the restrictive bail conditions Dodds was subject to were not sufficiently serious to warrant a further discount. Ultimately, the court determined that an end sentence of 14 months imprisonment was appropriate. However, considering Dodds' previous conviction for similar offending and her willingness to re-offend, the court decided against a sentence of home detention, opting instead for a sentence of 14 months imprisonment to achieve the purposes of denunciation, deterrence, and accountability.

Orders