R v Hall - [2017] NZHC 410

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2015-041-2056 [2017] NZHC 410

THE QUEEN

v

CHAZZ HAYDEN HALL

Hearing: 10 March 2017

Appearances: C R Walker for Crown
R Fairbrother QC and L Lafferty for Defendant

Judgment: 10 March 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

[1] Mr Hall, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty earlier this year to charges of murder, being in unlawful possession of a firearm, threatening to kill, dangerous driving and recklessly discharging a firearm. As you know, the maximum sentence on the charge of murder is life imprisonment. The maximum sentences on the remaining charges range between three months imprisonment and seven years imprisonment.

[2] There is no dispute today that a sentence of life imprisonment must be imposed. The only issue I need to decide is the length of any minimum term that you must serve in prison before being permitted to apply for parole. I emphasise at this stage, so that everybody in Court understands, that the minimum term the Court imposes is not the sentence that Mr Hall will serve. Rather, it is the term of imprisonment that he must serve before he is allowed to apply for parole. From that point it is up to the New Zealand Parole Board to determine how long he should remain in prison before being released.

The facts

[3] The events that gave rise to the charges occurred on the evening of

26 October 2015. The primary victim of your offending was your former partner, Victoria Foster. She was aged just 24 years at the date of her death.

[4] The agreed summary of facts records that you had been in what is described as an “off-on relationship” with Ms Foster for approximately six years before her death. You had a five year old daughter as a result of your relationship. You had been living with Ms Foster until about two years before October 2015. You then moved out and began living with relatives in Napier, whilst she remained in what had formerly been the family home in Westshore.

[5] You continued to maintain a degree of contact because you had to bring up your daughter together. It is clear from the summary of facts and the interview that the police conducted with you in November 2015 that you did not accept, or wish to accept, that the relationship was at an end. This unwillingness to accept the end of the relationship was what ultimately led to the events that occurred on the night of
26 October 2015.

[6] On that evening you were drinking with associates. During the course of the evening you had a number of telephone conversations with Ms Foster. The longest of these lasted for 22 minutes. It is clear from social media messages that Ms Foster sent out following these telephone conversations that they did not go well. She affirmed again that she did not want to continue a relationship with you. You were seen by your associates…

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 Hall

Details

AGLC: R v Hall [2017] NZHC 410
Case: [2017] NZHC 410
Decision Date: 10 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Napier Registry, the defendant, Chazz Hayden Hall, appeared for sentencing following his guilty pleas to charges including murder, unlawful possession of a firearm, threatening to kill, dangerous driving, and recklessly discharging a firearm. The court was required to determine the length of the minimum term Hall must serve before being eligible for parole. The primary issue was whether the statutory minimum term of 17 years imprisonment under Section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 was applicable and, if so, whether imposing such a term would be manifestly unjust.

The court found that Hall's unlawful presence at the victim's home, where he had been asked to leave, qualified the murder under Section 104(1)(c). The court assessed similar cases and determined a starting point of 13 years for the murder charge. Additional factors such as Hall's dangerous driving and threats to police officers led to an uplift of 12 months. Furthermore, Hall's previous convictions and unlawful possession of a firearm warranted an 18-month uplift. Despite the Crown's recommendation of a 17-year term, the court considered Hall's late guilty pleas and his expressed remorse, reducing the minimum term to 15 years and six months.

The court sentenced Hall to life imprisonment on the murder charge with a minimum term of 15 years and six months before parole eligibility. For the other charges, he received concurrent sentences of three months for unlawful possession of a firearm, 18 months each for threatening to kill the police and recklessly discharging a firearm, and two months for dangerous driving.

Orders