Legal Research
Cases
R v Graham

R v Graham

Case [2022] NZHC 2947 10 November 2022

Accessory After the Fact

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2020-025-001129

[2022] NZHC 2947

THE KING

v

SANDY MAREE GRAHAM GEORGE IVOR HYDE

Hearing: 8 November 2022

Counsel:

R W Donnelly and M B Brownlie for the Crown

S A Saunderson-Warner for the Defendant Graham
F E Guy Kidd KC and R R Smith for the Defendant Hyde

Judgment:

10 November 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J

[1] You have heard the submissions that have been made for you. You know that they were presented in writing and backed up with a lot of material which I had to read and have read very carefully.

[2] For everyone that is in Court, I want you to know that I need to go through how I have reached my decision very carefully and it is important that there be a record of the basis on which I have arrived at a sentence. You have heard submissions that have been made by both the Crown and for both these people. They have been very detailed submissions presented in writing. I have to consider those carefully. But, ultimately it is my judgment as to the sentence that has got to be appropriate and necessary for what happened.

R v GRAHAM & HYDE [2022] NZHC 2947 [10 November 2022]

[3] When he was killed, Dale Watene had just turned 40. And, I am going to say something more about him. And, I do that because of the way the defence at trial referred to various incidents that had occurred in a previous relationship and ways he had acted in Ms Graham’s home on two occasions when the Police had served Police safety orders on him before the events of 16 April 2020 when he was shot. They have referred to the same matters in suggesting that they mitigate the seriousness of this particular murder.

[4] During the trial I heard evidence from the Police officer who served those last two Police safety orders on Mr Watene. I also had the summaries of facts and other documents as to charges he had faced and pleaded guilty to in connection with incidents in an earlier relationship. I also had medical records referring to the engagement he had with mental health services following those incidents and his engagement with his local medical centre in 2019.

[5] Dale Watene was someone who, at least at times, felt insecure in the relationships he had. He was presented as someone who was jealous of a partner having contact with other men. I do not consider jealousy is the appropriate way to describe it. However, he perceived certain behaviour by his partner as being a threat to his relationship even though he later acknowledged it had not been. Mr Watene also had times when he would binge-drink and become grossly intoxicated. On several occasions, that coincided with times when his feelings of insecurity were intense. That led to his behaving in a way which…

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 Graham

Details

AGLC: R v Graham [2022] NZHC 2947
Case: [2022] NZHC 2947
Decision Date: 10 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sandy Maree Graham and George Ivor Hyde were convicted of their respective roles in the death of Dale Watene. The High Court was tasked with determining their appropriate sentences. Graham was found guilty of murder, while Hyde was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter. The court first considered the aggravating and mitigating factors for Graham's sentence. The court found that Graham's callousness, the use of a firearm, and the manner in which she disposed of the body were significant aggravating factors. The court also considered mitigating factors such as Graham's background, her efforts towards rehabilitation, and her PTSD diagnosis. After weighing these factors, the court imposed a life sentence with a minimum term of 13 years. The court then turned to Hyde's sentence, considering the seriousness of his offending, his youth, cognitive impairment, and remorse. The court imposed a sentence of home detention for eight months, acknowledging that imprisonment was not necessary for deterrence or denunciation in this case.

Orders