R v Grant - [2015] NZHC 2395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-009-5171 [2015] NZHC 2395

THE QUEEN

v

WILLIAM ALEXANDER HAMISH GRANT

Hearing: 1 October 2015

Appearances:

C J Boshier for Crown
E C Bulger for Prisoner

Judgment:

1 October 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] William Grant, you are for sentence today, having pleaded guilty to two charges of disfiguring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and one of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

[2] Now convictions have been entered on each charge and you have received the necessary three strikes warning.1

[3] When the matter came before Judge Neave on the 28 August 2015 he declined jurisdiction and transferred it to this Court because the question of whether preventive detention should be imposed was live.

1 R v Grant DC Christchurch CRI-2014-009-5171, 21 November 2014 (Judge Crosbie); R v Grant
DC Christchurch CRI-2014-009-10203, 12 December 2014 (Judge Garland).

R v GRANT [2015] NZHC 2395 [1 October 2015]

[4] Now as you are aware the first two charges carry a maximum sentence of

14 years’ imprisonment each and the second charge carries a maximum sentence of

10 years.

[5] However, the principal issue which I must deal with today is whether you should be sentenced to a finite term of imprisonment or to a term of preventive detention. Now having heard from the Crown and your counsel, Ms Bulger, I have reached the view that preventive detention is the appropriate sentence. Now because this is a different sentence from the kind that was indicated to you by Judge Neave, you must be formally provided with an opportunity to withdraw your plea of guilty. Now I understand you have taken instructions on that possibility? Thank you very much Ms Bulger.

[6] Now I have to go through the background to each of the offences.

Summary of facts

[7] So the charges arise out of three separate incidents and I will deal with them chronologically. They all occurred while you were serving a prison term for a conviction on a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm against your former girlfriend.

[8] Now the first incident occurred on 17 January 2014. You and your victim were in the changing room/toilet area near the kitchen of the Otago Correction facility in Milton. Following an altercation with your victim you bit the earlobe of your victim, severing a portion of the ear completely. While your victim underwent surgery in Dunedin hospital to reattach the earpiece, that was not successful, and your victim is permanently disfigured.

[9] Now on Saturday 19 April 2014, you were a prisoner at Christchurch Men’s Prison in Rolleston. Again, your victim was a prisoner and at the time of the offence you were working together in the kitchen in the prison. You had a physical altercation in that area, that morning, but at the conclusion of it, the two of you shook hands and moved on. However, just before 11.00 am that same…

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 Grant

Details

AGLC: R v Grant [2015] NZHC 2395
Case: [2015] NZHC 2395
Decision Date: 1 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, William Alexander Hamish Grant was sentenced for two charges of disfiguring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and one charge of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court had to decide whether Grant should be sentenced to a finite term of imprisonment or to a term of preventive detention. The key issue was whether Grant was likely to commit another qualifying violent offence if released from prison. The court considered the seriousness of the harm caused by the offending, the absence of efforts by Grant to address the cause or causes of the offending, and the principle that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable if it provides adequate protection for society. The court concluded that a sentence of preventive detention was the appropriate sentence.

The court found that Grant had a pattern of serious offending and was likely to commit another qualifying violent offence if released from prison. The court considered the seriousness of the harm caused by the offending, the absence of efforts by Grant to address the cause or causes of the offending, and the principle that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable if it provides adequate protection for society. The court concluded that a sentence of preventive detention was the appropriate sentence. The court set a minimum period of imprisonment of six years, which would run from the date of commission of the first of the three offences. The court declined to grant name suppression for Grant.

Orders