Legal Research
Cases
R v Gardner

R v Gardner

Case [2021] NZHC 3174 24 November 2021

Personal Mitigating Factors

Three Strikes Warning

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER MADE SUPPRESSING PUBLICATION OF THE REDACTED PASSAGES AT [22], [24], [30] AND [33].

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CRI-2021-076-385

[2021] NZHC 3174

THE QUEEN

v

JAYDEN LEONARD JOHN GARDNER

Hearing: 24 November 2021

Appearances:

R McDonald for Crown

T J Jackson for Defendant

Judgment:

24 November 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MANDER J

[1] Mr Gardner, at the conclusion of my sentencing remarks I will ask you to stand but you can remain seated while I deliver my sentencing remarks.

[2] Mr Gardner, you are for sentence this morning having pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of your father, Graham John Gardner, who I understand, and it has been confirmed this morning, was known as John (John). At the time of your plea and at your request, a conviction was not entered. It is necessary that I now formally record the entry of a conviction on that charge. A further preliminary matter is that there has to date been an order prohibiting publication of your name. That, understandably, has no longer been pursued and it now lapses.

R v GARDNER [2021] NZHC 3174 [24 November 2021]

[3] The entry of your guilty plea followed the provision of a sentence indication, at which time I set out the facts of your offending. While it may seem unnecessarily repetitive, it is necessary that I repeat the narrative of your offending in open Court as it is the basis upon which I proceed to impose the sentence on you.

The facts

[4] John was your 68-year-old father. At the time of this offence you were living with your parents at a rural property near Timaru. You had recently finished a sentence of home detention which you served at the address and were at the time subject to post-detention conditions that included judicial monitoring.

[5] At around 7 am on the 30th of April this year, you awoke in your bedroom. You were suffering from the effects of methamphetamine withdrawal. You went to your parents’ bedroom searching for your cannabis. You were agitated and frustrated. You began slamming doors in the house. Your 68-year-old father, John, confronted you and told you to settle down.

[6] An altercation took place between you and your father in your bedroom. The two of you began wrestling and your father ended up in a seated position on a couch with you standing over him. While in that position, you punched him three times in the head with a closed fist. One of the punches to the back of the head forced your father’s head into the arm of the couch, causing his nose to bleed. The punches were of sufficient force to cause him to lose consciousness for several minutes and resulted in three small cuts and bruises to his face.

[7] John was reluctant to seek medical assistance and appeared to recover from the assault. However, later during the evening and overnight his condition deteriorated…

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 Gardner

Details

AGLC: R v Gardner [2021] NZHC 3174
Case: [2021] NZHC 3174
Decision Date: 24 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Manderson J handed down a judgment and sentence in the case of The Queen v Jayden Leonard John Gardner. The defendant, Jayden Leonard John Gardner, pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his father, Graham John Gardner. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it.

The court identified several aggravating factors, including the attack on the head, the age difference between the defendant and his father, and the fact that the violence occurred within the family home. However, the court also considered mitigating factors such as the defendant's immediate regret for the assault, his attempts to seek help for his father, and his history of substance abuse and mental health issues. The court took into account the defendant's guilty plea, his personal background, and his expressed remorse in determining the appropriate sentence.

Manderson J imposed a sentence of three years' imprisonment on the defendant for manslaughter, with a seven per cent credit for remorse and a twelve per cent discount for personal factors. The court also issued a formal three strikes warning to the defendant, informing him of the consequences of another serious violence conviction under the three strikes law. Additionally, the court made an order prohibiting publication of certain references made in the sentencing remarks.

The court's decision in this case demonstrates the importance of considering both aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing, as well as the need to hold offenders accountable for their actions while also taking into account their personal circumstances and potential for rehabilitation.

Orders