R v Greathead - [2013] NZHC 2148

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIMS PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

CRI-2013-006-000471 [2013] NZHC 2148

THE QUEEN

v

DANIEL JEFFREY GREATHEAD

Counsel:
M A O'Donoghue for Crown

R A Harrison for Prisoner

Sentence:

23 August 2013

NOTES ON SENTENCING OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Greathead, you are to be sentenced on one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1 You pleaded guilty to that charge.

[2] The challenge I have had to face is whether I should sentence you to a finite term of imprisonment, or preventive detention.

[3] The Crown Solicitor recommends I impose a sentence of preventive detention. The Probation Service recommends a finite sentence of imprisonment, but also says that in the circumstances of your case a sentence of preventive detention would be appropriate. Your counsel strongly urges me to impose a finite
sentence of eight years, with a five year minimum period of imprisonment.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1).

R v GREATHEAD [2013] NZHC 2148 [23 August 2013]

[4] I have carefully weighed both options. After many hours of analysis and reflection I have decided to impose a sentence of preventive detention.

[5] In sentencing you, I shall:

(1) explain your offending;

(2) explain your history of previous offending;

(3)explain the assessments of you that have been made by a probation officer and two health professionals;

(4) explain what finite sentence and minimum period of imprisonment I

would otherwise have imposed;

(5)assess your circumstances against the statutory criteria that governs sentences of preventive detention; and

(6) explain your sentence and the minimum period you must serve in prison.

Your offending

[6] On the evening of 8 March 2013, you organised to meet an escort at a motel in Blenheim. While you and the escort were having sex you started strangling your victim by holding both hands around her throat. When the pressure was released your victim cried out for help. You responded by forcing one hand into her mouth and holding her nose shut with your other hand preventing her from breathing. Your victim bit your finger and you withdrew your hand from her mouth but then used a pillow to attempt to suffocate her. The victim was able to struggle free and fall onto the floor. You then squatted over the victim and punched her in the head and upper torso, saying to her “you die, you die”. The victim ran to the bathroom and attempted to climb out the window. However, you dragged her back into the bedroom by her arm. The victim offered to repay you the money you had paid her

for her services. You took the money and when you began to count it your victim escaped through a sliding door.

[7] Your victim suffered haemorrhaging to her eyes, serious bruising to her face and upper torso.

[8] At the time of this offending you were 38 years…

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 Greathead

Details

AGLC: R v Greathead [2013] NZHC 2148
Case: [2013] NZHC 2148
Decision Date: 23 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand Blenheim Registry dealt with the sentencing of Daniel Jeffrey Greathead, who pleaded guilty to one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court considered whether to impose a finite term of imprisonment or a sentence of preventive detention. The Crown Solicitor recommended preventive detention, while the Probation Service suggested a finite sentence but also acknowledged the appropriateness of preventive detention. The defendant's counsel urged for a finite sentence of eight years with a five-year minimum period of imprisonment.

The court evaluated the defendant's history of violent offending against women, which began in 2004 and continued through 2013, demonstrating a pattern of escalating violence. The court considered assessments from the Probation Service and two health professionals, which highlighted the defendant's inability to regulate mood swings, substance abuse issues, and a high risk of reoffending. The defendant had previously participated in drug and alcohol treatment programs with limited success, indicating a failure to address the underlying causes of his offending behavior.

The court determined that a sentence of preventive detention was appropriate due to the defendant's persistent pattern of violent offending against vulnerable women and his lack of responsiveness to previous treatment efforts. The court imposed a sentence of preventive detention with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years, aiming to protect the community from the defendant's risk of reoffending.

Orders