R v Fahey - [2015] NZHC 78

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-004-10184 [2015] NZHC 78

THE QUEEN

v

GREVILLE HENARE FAHEY

Hearing: 5 February 2015

Appearances:

D G Johnstone for Crown
Mr Fahey in person
P E Dacre QC (counsel appointed to assist the Court)

Sentence:

5 February 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v GREVILLE HENARE FAHEY [2015] NZHC 78 [5 February 2015]

[1] Mr Fahey, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury of murdering Mr Steven Harris. As you have heard, and now well know, the only realistic sentence to be imposed in the circumstances of this case is one of life imprisonment. The real issue is the minimum term of imprisonment that I am required to impose in order to satisfy the legal provisions that apply in this context.

Background

[2] Your offending occurred late on the evening of 4 September 2013. It began when you and your friend, Mr Harris, were walking through central Auckland City. I do not have any detailed knowledge of your previous association with Mr Harris. Clearly, however, he was an associate with whom you spent some time, because during the trial the Court heard evidence about an incident that occurred on
25 August 2013, just over a week before the incident for which you appear for sentence today, in which you and Mr Harris were seen together in the viaduct area of Auckland City. During that incident, Mr Harris went for a joyride on a boat that was tied up at the waterfront and this led to his subsequent arrest. So clearly, a week or two before this incident, you were associating in a friendly way with Mr Harris.

[3] You were roughly the same age, being 48 years in your case at that time, whilst Mr Harris was approximately 54 years.

[4] On this particular evening, that of 4 September 2013, you and Mr Harris were together at your residence at the Grafton Oaks Hotel. The receptionist at the hotel gave evidence about hearing an angry verbal altercation between the two of you. She then saw Mr Harris leave the hotel at about 7 pm and you followed.

[5] There is no evidence as to what you did over the next four hours, but I infer that you must have gone into the central area of Auckland City because CCTV cameras picked up you and Mr Harris in the area of Albert Street at shortly before 11 pm. CCTV camera footage during the trial show that you and Mr Harris walked down from Albert Street into Victoria Street West. You then entered Elliott Street, where you went into a pizza parlour and obtained some free pizza. You shared this

with Mr Harris and the two of you then continued walking down Elliott Street, and then onto Queen Street. You walked down Queen Street to the area of Aotea Square, where you were seen walking across Aotea Square. By this stage you were walking apart, with 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 Fahey

Details

AGLC: R v Fahey [2015] NZHC 78
Case: [2015] NZHC 78
Decision Date: 5 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Greville Henare Fahey was sentenced for the murder of Steven Harris. The defendant was found guilty of stabbing Mr Harris in Myers Park, Auckland, on 4 September 2013. The court had to determine the appropriate minimum term of imprisonment to be imposed under the Sentencing Act 2002, considering the need for denunciation, accountability, deterrence, and protection of the community. The defendant had a history of violent offenses, including 15 separate convictions for acts of violence and 202 previous convictions overall. The court considered these factors in deciding on the minimum term.

The court acknowledged the impact of the crime on the victim's family, particularly the victim's sister, who had to relive the events during the trial. The Crown argued for a minimum term of more than ten years due to the defendant's history of violence. The defendant's propensity for violence, particularly with knives, and his history of violent behavior in various contexts, including family, prison, and strangers, led the court to consider him a danger to the community. The court reviewed relevant authorities and decided to increase the minimum term by two years to reflect the defendant's risk, resulting in a total minimum term of 12 years.

The sentencing remarks concluded that the defendant was to be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 12 years before being eligible to apply for parole. The defendant's history of violent behavior, propensity for using weapons, and the significant impact on the victim's family justified the increased minimum term. The court aimed to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and community protection with the principles of consistency and proportionality in sentencing.

Orders