R v Hall - [2012] NZHC 2070

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE VICTIM AND HER MOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2011-041-0934 [2012] NZHC 2070

THE QUEEN

v

JAMES ROBERT HALL

Hearing: 13 August 2012

Appearances: R J Collins for Crown
J S Jefferson for Prisoner

Sentence: 13 August 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Elvidge and Partners, Crown Solicitor, Napier: russell.collins@elvidges.co.nz

Counsel: J S Jefferson, Napier: scott@sjbarrister.co.nz

R V HALL HC NAP CRI-2011-041-0934 [13 August 2012]

Introduction

[1] Mr Hall, we are going to do this in four stages.

[2] The first stage is that I shall enter convictions on the two charges against you

and give you the first of the “three strikes” warning.

[3] The second stage will be to consider your personal circumstances and the circumstances relating to this offending, and the effect your offending has had on your former partner, your daughter, and of course the wider community.

[4] Then we get onto stages three and four which is to determine what the sentence is going to be. The first of those stages is to arrive at what we call a starting point. The fourth stage is to reduce or increase that starting point to take account of factors that relate to you personally. I have already discussed some of those with counsel and the two that arise particularly in your case are your age and your guilty plea.

Stage one

[5] Let us come back to stage one. I am going to convict you, because you have pleaded guilty to the charges in the amended indictment, on each of the two charges.

[6] The first is that on 20 March 2011 at Napier, with intent to injure your daughter, you did cause your daughter grievous bodily harm. I enter a conviction on that charge.1

[7] I also enter a conviction on the charge that between 21 November 2010 and

22 March 2011 at Napier, you caused your daughter grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard for her safety.2 That is a representative charge. The significance of a representative charge is that the prosecution are be satisfied that, in the period
nominated, you committed that offence at least once, but they cannot pinpoint the

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2).
2 Ibid.

date. So at one point between November 2010 and March 2011 you have caused your daughter grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard for her safety but it is simply not possible to indentify the precise date on which you did so.

Three strikes warning

[8] Mr Hall, given those convictions you are now subject to what is called the “three strikes” law. I am going to give you a warning of the consequences for you of another conviction for a serious violent offence. You will also get this warning in writing.

[9] If you are convicted of one or more serious violent offence, other than murder, committed after I give you this warning and if a Judge imposes a sentence of…

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 [2012] NZHC 2070
Case: [2012] NZHC 2070
Decision Date: 13 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hall involved the sentencing of James Robert Hall, who was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm to his infant daughter with intent and recklessly. The High Court of New Zealand, Napier Registry, presided over the case. The primary legal issues the court needed to address were determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering mitigating and aggravating factors, and deciding on an appropriate sentence that adhered to the purposes of sentencing.

The court began by convicting Hall on both charges and issuing the "three strikes" warning due to the nature of the offenses. In assessing the appropriate starting point, the court considered the nature and severity of the injuries inflicted, the circumstances of the offending, and compared the case with previous cases involving similar offenses against children. After thorough deliberation, the court determined a starting point of three years and three months imprisonment. However, mitigating factors such as Hall's youth, his guilty plea, and his willingness to address his anger management issues led the court to reduce the sentence. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of 12 months home detention to be served concurrently on both charges, along with specific conditions to ensure public safety and facilitate Hall's rehabilitation.

The final orders included 12 months of home detention with specified conditions, such as electronic monitoring, participation in rehabilitation and anger management programs, and a prohibition on being alone with any child under 10 years old during the detention period.

Orders