R v Giles - [2014] NZHC 1776

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE SENTENCING NOTES IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL OF CO- ACCUSED, ZEBULIN MARIO DAVOREN.

PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-004-004424

[2014] NZHC 1776

THE QUEEN

v

JASMINE GILES

Hearing: 29 July 2014

Appearances:

M D Anderson for the Crown R Mansfield for the Defendant

Judgment:

29 July 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

R v GILES [2014] NZHC 1776 [29 July 2014]

[1] Jasmine Giles, you appear today for a sentence indication on a charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice under s 116 of the Crimes Act 1961. A sentence indication has been sought by you through your counsel, Mr Mansfield.

[2] For the purposes of the hearing I have received an agreed summary of facts. I have considered that summary in accordance with s 61(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. I have also considered the charge contained in the indictment, including the specified particulars, your criminal record, or should I say lack of any criminal record, detailed written submissions filed by your counsel and the Crown, and oral submissions that have been made to me this morning.

[3] I am satisfied that the information available to me is sufficient for the purpose of giving a sentence indication. As required by the Criminal Procedure Act, I have conducted the hearing in open Court and I am giving this sentencing indication orally.

[4] The charge in the indictment reads – the said Crown Solicitor further charges the Zebulin Mario Davoren and Jasmine Giles, between 1 November 2012 and 28 November 2012, at Auckland, conspired to pervert the course of justice. The particulars are specified as conspiring to prevent the Official Assignee from restraining Zebulin Davoren’s vehicles and being released from custody on bail under false pretences.

[5] You were in a relationship with Mr Davoren, who was arrested and remanded in custody on 1 November 2012 following the termination of a Police operation targeting the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. Whilst in custody, Mr Davoren had access to a mobile phone. Between 11 November 2012 and 27 November 2012 a series of conversations between you and Mr Davoren were intercepted. During these conversations you discussed ways in which to retrieve a 1966 Chevrolet Impala, which was owned by Mr Davoren, and seized by the Police on 2 November 2012. You told Mr Davoren that your mother had received a $30,000 tax refund and that this could be used to disguise the true origin of the money used to purchase the vehicle. You continued discussing whether the aim of getting the car back could be achieved by doing this and you talk about exactly what your mother would say. During one call, you are recorded as explaining that your mother was

unsure about doing this, however, you had told her that she just needed to say that she had lent…

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 Giles

Details

AGLC: R v Giles [2014] NZHC 1776
Case: [2014] NZHC 1776
Decision Date: 29 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of The Queen v Jasmine Giles was heard on 29 July 2014. Jasmine Giles, who was in a relationship with Zebulin Mario Davoren, was charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice under section 116 of the Crimes Act 1961. The conspiracy was alleged to have taken place between 1 November 2012 and 28 November 2012, with the aim of preventing the Official Assignee from restraining Davoren's vehicles and obtaining bail under false pretenses. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for Giles, considering the nature of the offence, her criminal history, and the submissions made by both the Crown and her counsel.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for Giles and whether a community-based sentence would be suitable. Giles' counsel argued for a sentence of conviction and discharge, a fine, or a short sentence of community work, considering the lack of violence, planning, or premeditation in the offence. They also highlighted mitigating factors such as Giles' youth, low risk of reoffending, and support from her family and community. Additionally, they proposed a 25% discount for Giles' guilty plea and remorse. The Crown, on the other hand, agreed that a community-based sentence would be appropriate but argued for a sentence of community work and/or community detention to meet the purposes of denunciation and deterrence. They proposed a 15% discount for Giles' relative youth and good character.

The court, after considering the submissions and the nature of the offence, ruled that while a conviction and discharge would not be appropriate, a community-based sentence was suitable. The court decided on a starting point of a conviction and 150 hours of community work, taking into account various factors such as Giles' good character, her guilty plea, and her remorse. The court then applied a 33% discount to arrive at a final sentence of a conviction and 100 hours of community work. The sentence indication was effective until five working days after the hearing date. Giles accepted the sentencing indication and pleaded guilty, leading to her conviction and sentencing to 100 hours of community work.

Orders