R v Granich - [2013] NZHC 2657

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2013-035-053 [2013] NZHC 2657

THE QUEEN

v

CASSANDRA GRANICH

Hearing: 11 October 2013

Counsel: A C Whittaker for Crown
N J Sainsbury for Accused

Sentence: 11 October 2013

SENTENCE OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1] Ms Granich you have pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to an alleged murder.

[2] You and others who have been charged with murder apparently were socialising on the evening of 11 January 2013. Amongst the group there was a suggestion that the victim in this matter had acted inappropriately toward a woman. I add that there is nothing to suggest that that was true. As a result of that conversation a number of people including you drove to the victim’s residence in Featherston. When the group arrived they went into the victim’s residence. You stayed outside the victim’s address on the footpath. The others went inside and it is said as a result of their actions the victim died the following day in the hospital.

[3] You then went back to Masterton. The next day one of those said to be involved in the events the previous day arrived at your home. That man then asked
you if you could get rid of a pair of shoes he had been wearing the night before.

R v GRANICH [2013] NZHC 2657 [11 October 2013]

Initially you said you wanted nothing to do with it but eventually you took the shoes from him. You knew he had worn the shoes at the time of the alleged assault on the victim. And you knew his shoes would be of interest to the police investigating the circumstances of the victim’s death.

[4] You held your sleeves over your hands as you held the shoes to make sure you weren’t linked with the shoes yourself. You then walked to the rear of the property and into a neighbouring property, threw one shoe down by a shed and the other one in the opposite direction.

[5] When you were spoken to by the police you were remorseful and said it was a spur of the moment thing and that you didn’t intend to destroy the shoes. You then helped the police in locating one of the shoes although the other could not be found.

[6] You pleaded guilty after a sentence indication from me.

[7] You have no relevant criminal history. The pre-sentence report notes, however, that you do have a significant drug and alcohol problem consuming large amounts of alcohol and smoking cannabis in the evening. Unsurprisingly the probation assessment suggests that your drug and alcohol use is now at a harmful level. You work at your grandfather’s printing factory in Petone.

[8] You have expressed remorse for your involvement in this and anger and annoyance that you had become involved in the event. You are motivated it seems to reduce your alcohol and drug use.

[9] I want to acknowledge the victim impact of this crime…

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 Granich

Details

AGLC: R v Granich [2013] NZHC 2657
Case: [2013] NZHC 2657
Decision Date: 11 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cassandra Granich was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to an alleged murder in the High Court of New Zealand. Granich was involved in an altercation in which a victim died the following day. Granich assisted one of the accused by disposing of the shoes worn by the accused during the incident, knowing the shoes would be of interest to the police investigating the case. Granich was remorseful and assisted the police in locating one of the shoes. The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for Granich's involvement in the crime and the effect of her actions on the police investigation. The court considered the seriousness of the offence, Granich's cooperation with the police, and her expressions of remorse in determining the sentence. The court imposed a sentence of five months' community detention, 150 hours of community work, and 12 months of supervision, including a requirement to complete a program for alcohol and drug abuse. The court also suppressed the victim impact report and the contents of the oral presentation of the victim impact by Mrs Jones.

Orders