R v Donaldson - [2016] NZHC 1718

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL OF CO-DEFENDANT IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2016-012-000582 [2016] NZHC 1718

THE QUEEN

v

LEANNE FAY DONALDSON

Hearing: 27 July 2016

Appearances:

R D Smith for Crown
A More for Defendant

Judgment:

27 July 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Ms Donaldson, you are here for sentencing today, having pleaded guilty to one charge of injuring with intent to injure.1

[2] As you know, I gave you a sentencing indication on 18 May 2016, where I indicated that a sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment was likely, but with the possibility of home detention if that was supported by the pre-sentence report that was
subsequently prepared.

1 Under s 189(2) and s 66 of the Crimes Act 1961.

[3] Since that date, a pre-sentence report has been prepared and provided to me. It assesses your risk of harm and your likelihood of reoffending as low. It also assesses that you are able to comply with a recommended sentence of home detention. In terms of that home detention recommendation, it is proposed that it is served at your residence in Dunedin.2 It is also recommended that one of the special conditions that should be imposed is that you complete an appropriate woman’s short rehabilitative programme to the satisfaction of a probation officer. So I take those matters into account as I proceed through the process.

Background

[4] The events which led to this charge, as you know, occurred very early on the morning of 7 February 2016, when the victim whom you lived with was stabbed
14 times by your ex-husband.

[5] Your involvement began with communications by telephone with your ex-husband, which included after he tapped on the window that morning, shortly before 5.40 am. You texted your ex-husband, asking if it was him at the door. Apparently a telephone conversation ensued where you were told that the victim was “going to get a fucking lesson that she would never forget. That no-one fucks with his family and that no-one lies to him”. You then said you woke the victim up to answer the door as had been arranged over the phone. When your ex-husband found his way in, he grabbed the victim by the throat and pushed her against the wall. You say that at some stage you retreated to the bedroom while the attack took place.

[6] As you have heard there has been some discussion today that in the pre-sentence report you suggest that you were unaware that the person at the front door was your ex-husband. I am, of course, sentencing on the basis of the summary of facts and it is clear from that and from the statement that has been read out by Mr Smith that you…

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 Donaldson

Details

AGLC: R v Donaldson [2016] NZHC 1718
Case: [2016] NZHC 1718
Decision Date: 27 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Dunedin Registry, presided over by Justice Dunningham, was tasked with sentencing LeAnne Fay Donaldson for a charge of injuring with intent to injure. Donaldson, who had pleaded guilty, was found to have assisted her ex-husband in an attack on the victim, who was stabbed multiple times. The attack was preceded by communications between Donaldson and her ex-husband, in which she was complicit in ensuring the victim answered the door, knowing it was likely to be him. The court considered Donaldson's background, including her previous good character, lack of criminal history, and remorse shown, along with a pre-sentence report that assessed her risk of harm and likelihood of reoffending as low.

The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriate sentencing for Donaldson's role in the crime, balancing the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and the least restrictive outcome. The court had to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the severity and nature of the offence, taking into account factors such as the level of premeditation, the violence involved, and Donaldson's level of involvement. Additionally, the court had to decide on the applicability of discounts for Donaldson's guilty plea and her cooperation with the Crown, as well as the suitability of home detention as a sentence.

Justice Dunningham concluded that the starting point for sentencing was at the top of band 2 or early in band 3 of the sentencing guidelines, reflecting the aggravating factors of home invasion, premeditation, and extreme violence. After applying discounts for Donaldson's good character, remorse, and guilty plea, along with a discount for cooperation, the court arrived at a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment. However, considering the principles of sentencing and the recommendations in the pre-sentence report, the court deemed home detention as the appropriate sentence. Donaldson was sentenced to 10 months’ home detention, to be served at her residence in Dunedin, with special conditions including the completion of a short rehabilitative programme and a prohibition on contact with the victim.

Orders