R v Hanks - [2018] NZHC 1543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KOTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-090-004800 [2018] NZHC 1543

THE QUEEN

v

KORRINE LORRAINE HANKS

Hearing: 26 June 2018

Appearances:

S L McColgan for the Crown M Kan for the Defendant

Judgment:

26 June 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF POWELL J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Counsel:
S L McColgan
M Kan, Auckland

R v HANKS [2018] NZHC 1543 [26 June 2018]

Introduction

[1] Ms Hanks, as you are aware you have pleaded guilty to three charges: of being a party to discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others;1 blackmail;2 and unlawful possession of a firearm.3 You pleaded guilty after accepting the sentence indication I gave on 28 May 2018.4

[2] At that time I indicated a starting point of four years’ imprisonment, and that a 25 per cent discount for your guilty plea was available. I also indicated that matters personal to you would be considered at sentencing. Although I have already previously explained to you the rationale for both the four years and the 25 per cent discount, and indeed I have detailed your offending twice previously, because sentencing is a judicial function which is undertaken in public I am required to traverse those matters again, albeit more briefly.

Details of Offending

[3] Ms Hanks, your offending combined both violence and extortion. In September 2017 you and Jason Lee conspired and agreed on a common purpose to use violence to extort a black Holden Commodore Clubsport from the victim, Robert Flavell.

[4] The agreed summary of facts detailed that you believed Mr Flavell owed you a debt and that you intended to recover it by taking his car.

[5] I pause at this point to note that you have given a slightly different account of the motivation to the probation officer; that you fabricated the debt in order to win favour with Mr Lee, who was your long-term partner whom you had been in a violent relationship with but had recently separated from. The sentencing indication that I gave was on the basis of the agreed summary of facts, which you accepted. This sentencing must proceed on those facts. But whichever scenario is adopted, it was the conduct which followed which justified the starting point of four years’ imprisonment.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 198(2) and 66(2). The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Sections 237 and 238. The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Arms Act 1983, s 45. The maximum penalty is four years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $5,000.
4      R v Hanks [2018] NZHC 1216.

[6] On 12 September 2017 you sent Mr Lee a series of text messages inciting him to assist you in using violence to recover the car. The texts show clearly your responsibility for what followed and the level of premeditation that was involved. The messages also reveal that you assisted Mr Lee to obtain a firearm to use in the offending,…

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 Hanks

Details

AGLC: R v Hanks [2018] NZHC 1543
Case: [2018] NZHC 1543
Decision Date: 26 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hanks was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, with Ms. Hanks pleading guilty to three charges: being a party to discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others, blackmail, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for Ms. Hanks, taking into account her personal circumstances, the seriousness of her offending, and the discount for her guilty plea.

The court considered the starting point of four years' imprisonment, adjusted for Ms. Hanks' role in the offending, which included premeditation and home invasion. The court also considered the personal aggravating and mitigating circumstances, such as the nature of Ms. Hanks' relationship with her co-offender, her role as a primary caregiver for her children and nieces, her remorse, and her restrictive bail conditions. The court found these factors justified a substantial discount in the sentence, ultimately equivalent to 48% of the starting point.

In addition to the personal circumstances, the court also considered the discount for Ms. Hanks' guilty plea, which was 25%. After applying these discounts, the court arrived at a nominal end sentence of 19 months' imprisonment, representing a net 60% discount from the original starting point.

The court decided that the most appropriate sentence in this case was one of home detention, considering Ms. Hanks' prospects of rehabilitation, her responsibility for raising her children and nieces, and the need to denounce and deter her conduct. The court imposed a term of nine and a half months' home detention, together with special and post-detention conditions.

The final orders of the court were that Ms. Hanks be sentenced to nine and a half months' home detention, along with the special and post-detention conditions as recommended in the pre-sentence report. The court warned Ms. Hanks that if she offended again, the consequences would be far more severe than the sentence being imposed.

Orders