IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE
CRI-2022-209-153
[2024] NZHC 1639
THE KING
v
FLYNN JAMES GLINTMEYER
Hearing:
20 June 2024
Appearances:
D L Elsmore for the Crown
P H B Hall KC and E Huda for the Defendant
Judgment:
20 June 2024
SENTENCING REMARKS OF HARLAND J
Introduction
[1] What we are going to now Mr Glintmeyer is I am now going to focus my attention on you because this is all about you now. So, I am going to address my remarks to you and, as I said at the outset, you can remain seated until right at the end after I have addressed you, I will ask you to stand when I impose the sentence.
[2] Mr Glintmeyer, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery1 and one of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.2 Your offending occurred on 9 and 10 July 2022, when you were 17. You are now 19. My task today
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 235(c); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 188(1); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
R v GLINTMEYER [2024] NZHC 1639 [20 June 2024]
is to sentence you in respect of this offending. A term of imprisonment is inevitable. The question for me is how long that term should be.
[3] There is a process I must go through before I impose sentence on you, and I begin by acknowledging not only you but your family members who are present.
The offending
[4]I am going to start now by outlining the relevant events, that is what happened.
[5] On the evening of Saturday 9 July 2022, you and three of your friends were at an address in Christchurch. You used a Facebook profile you owned to organise a cannabis transaction with the first victim. You arranged for her to park at a particular street.
[6] As arranged, at about 11.00 pm, the victim drove to the meeting place. You and two of your friends approached her car, all wearing full face masks. You were holding a knife and one of your associates was holding an imitation Glock pistol. When you reached the car, the associate that was not carrying a weapon spoke to the victim from the driver’s side of the car and demanded she hand over her car keys and money. Your co-defendant, who was holding the imitation pistol, got into the passenger seat and pointed the pistol at the victim. Your unarmed co-defendant leaned into the car through the driver’s window and took the keys from the ignition, setting off the car alarm. You then came up to the car and stabbed the victim in her right thigh. Your co-defendant, who was in the passenger seat and had presented the pistol at her, struck her on the head with the pistol and took a $20 note and cannabis from the car. All of you then ran away.
[7] The next day, on…
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 Glintmeyer
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Glintmeyer [2024] NZHC 1639
Case
[2024] NZHC 1639
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Flynn James Glintmeyer pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery and one of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The incidents occurred on 9 and 10 July 2022, when the defendant was 17 years old. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant’s serious and violent offending, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court acknowledged the defendant’s age, upbringing, mental health issues, and lack of prior convictions as mitigating factors, while also considering the gravity of the crimes, the impact on the victims, and the need for denunciation and deterrence. The starting point for the sentence was determined to be nine years' imprisonment, with a total deduction of 60% applied for the mitigating factors, resulting in a final sentence of three years and seven months' imprisonment to be served concurrently. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and the defendant's potential for positive change.