R v Gray - [2019] NZHC 2364

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2018-083-001041

[2019] NZHC 2364

THE QUEEN

v

CONRAD GRAY

Hearing: 19 September 2019

Counsel:

C B Wilkinson-Smith and R N Benic for Crown N Bourke for Defendant

Sentencing:

19 September 2019

SENTENCING OF COOKE J

[1] Mr Gray you have pleaded guilty to the charge of the manslaughter of Daniel Gooch.1 You do so following my sentencing indication of 9 July 2019. In that sentencing indication I indicated a sentence of two years and nine months’ imprisonment for your offending. I told you there was potential for that sentence to be lower given personal factors of the kind to be addressed in formal reports. I have since received a pre-sentence report, a cultural report, and have also had the benefit of submissions from the Crown and your counsel on those matters.

Summary of offending

[2] I begin by addressing matters I have already considered in the sentencing indication. On 19 April 2018 you were drinking alcohol with your younger brother at

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 171 and 177, maximum penalty life imprisonment.

R v GRAY [2019] NZHC 2364 [19 September 2019]

a residential address in Whanganui, where you resided with two male flatmates, including Mr Gooch. The residence is operated by the Grace Foundation, a charitable trust providing accommodation and services to marginalised members of the community. Mr Gooch was also drinking alcohol and there is evidence that he, as well as you have alcohol related issues. At some point during that night, you became involved in an argument with him that evolved into a physical altercation, resulting in the breaking of a window. You struck him in the left eye, causing his glasses to break. He received a laceration to his forehead above his left eye. Mr Gooch then left the address.

[3] At around 2 am you then met up again with Mr Gooch on the footpath of a nearby residential area. It was raining. Another physical altercation ensued. Mr Gooch struck out at you, and you responded by forcefully shoving him, causing him to fall backwards and to strike his head on a galvanised pole about 70 cm in height. He momentarily got back to his feet before collapsing onto the road. You then left him there lying unconscious on the road.

[4] Mr Gooch was found about an hour later by a member of the public and taken to hospital. He was diagnosed with hypothermia and had a skull fracture and life- threatening brain bleed. He underwent surgery but eventually died a few weeks later. The post-mortem attributed the cause of death to blunt force trauma to his head.

[5] In the days following the assault, you then generated a series of fictitious Facebook messages between you and your brother that deflected responsibility for the assault towards him. Those messages were later discovered by police.

[6]When spoken to by police, you denied assaulting Mr Gooch.

[7] The fact…

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 Gray

Details

AGLC: R v Gray [2019] NZHC 2364
Case: [2019] NZHC 2364
Decision Date: 19 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Conrad Gray was sentenced by Cooke J in the High Court of New Zealand for the manslaughter of Daniel Gooch. Gray pleaded guilty to the charge, which stemmed from a physical altercation that resulted in Gooch's death. The court had to decide on an appropriate starting point for the sentence and the degree of discount to apply based on personal and cultural mitigating factors. The court established a starting point of three years’ imprisonment, considering the nature of the assault and Gray's failure to seek help for the victim. The personal and cultural mitigating factors, including Gray's troubled background and expression of remorse, led to a discount of approximately 20 per cent. The final sentence imposed was two years and one month imprisonment.

The court's reasoning was influenced by the comparison of Gray's case with other manslaughter cases involving single punches or pushes that resulted in death. The court found that the assault in this case was less violent than a punch but still carried serious consequences due to Gray's failure to seek assistance for the victim and his attempts to deflect responsibility. The personal and cultural factors, such as Gray's history of abuse, neglect, and systemic deprivation, contributed to the discount applied to the sentence. The court considered these factors in determining the appropriate sentence, which ultimately resulted in two years and one month imprisonment for the manslaughter of Daniel Gooch.

Orders