R v Doyle - [2019] NZHC 856

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2018-488-34

[2019] NZHC 856

THE QUEEN

v

BREZZIN ANNE DOYLE

Hearing: 17 April 2019

Appearances:

M B Smith and S Barnaart for Crown M Russell for Defendant

Judgment:

17 April 2019

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v DOYLE [2019] NZHC 856 [17 April 2019]

[1] Ms Doyle, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a charge of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter. I canvassed the facts of your offending fully in the sentence indication I gave on 13 March 2019.1 I do not propose to traverse those issues again. It is sufficient for present purposes to say that your offending occurred when you obeyed the instructions of your former partner and his associates to move a motor vehicle that had been used by a person involved in a fatal shooting. In doing so you actively hindered the police investigation because the vehicle was an obvious link to the identification of the shooter.

[2] I selected a starting point of 12 months imprisonment for that charge. I indicated I was prepared to allow a discount of three months, or around 25 per cent, to reflect guilty pleas if you entered them. I also said I might be prepared to reduce the sentence further to reflect other mitigating factors revealed by any pre-sentence report.

[3] I have now received a pre-sentence report and also a report assessing the suitability of your address for the purposes of an electronically monitored sentence. A sentence of nine months imprisonment is obviously well within the range of which home detention or other community-based sentences could be considered. I said that whether or not I was prepared to impose such a sentence would depend very much on the contents of the material I would receive prior to sentencing.

[4] That material satisfies me not only that there is a suitable address at which you could serve an electronically monitored sentence but also that you are a person who qualifies for such a sentence. I acknowledge that you have had a very difficult life, and this has led to you offending in years past. Matters have not been helped recently by the fact that you tested positive for methamphetamine whilst on bail following the sentence indication being given. Notwithstanding this lapse, I am prepared to impose a sentence of home detention.

[5] I am not prepared to countenance a sentence of community detention for two reasons. First, I do not consider it would be seen as a sufficiently deterrent sentence by those in the community who might be prepared to offend in a similar way in the future. Secondly, I have a concern that a sentence of community detention may leave

1 R v Doyle [2019] NZHC 427.

you open to further lapses such as that which occurred recently whilst you were on bail. I consider you need the full-time restriction of home detention,…

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 Doyle

Details

AGLC: R v Doyle [2019] NZHC 856
Case: [2019] NZHC 856
Decision Date: 17 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the defendant Brezzin Anne Doyle faced sentencing for her role as an accessory after the fact to manslaughter. The defendant pleaded guilty to assisting her former partner and his associates by moving a motor vehicle that had been used in a fatal shooting, thereby hindering the police investigation. The court had previously set a starting point of 12 months imprisonment for this offence, with the possibility of a three-month reduction for the defendant's early guilty plea. The court was required to consider the mitigating and aggravating factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court acknowledged the defendant's difficult life and past offending but noted her recent lapse in drug use while on bail. Despite this, the court decided to impose a sentence of home detention, as it believed community detention would not serve as an adequate deterrent and might expose the defendant to further lapses. The court also expressed concern for the safety of the three-year-old child in the defendant's care, based on previous interactions with the defendant. The court proposed a sentence of four months and two weeks home detention, subject to specific conditions, including a non-association order with the defendant's former partner.

The court, therefore, sentenced the defendant to four months and two weeks home detention, to be served at her nominated address. The sentence would be subject to conditions outlined in a report assessing the suitability of her address for electronically monitored sentencing. The court reserved the right to impose a specific non-association order if necessary.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to four months and two weeks home detention, to be served at her nominated address, subject to the conditions outlined in the electronically monitored bail assessor's report.

Orders