R v Harrington - [2017] NZHC 170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-009-1501 [2017] NZHC 170

THE QUEEN

v

TONY JOE HARRINGTON

Hearing: 16 February 2017

Appearances:

K J Basire for Crown
S G Bailey for Defendant

Judgment:

16 February 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Mr Harrington you have pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter on

16 December 2016 and I now enter a conviction on that charge.

Three strike warning

[2] Given your conviction for manslaughter you are now subject to the three strikes law. I am going to give you a warning of the consequence of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written notice outlining these consequences which lists the ‘serious violent offences’.

1.If you are convicted of any serious violence offence other than murder committed after this warning and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment then you will serve that sentence without
parole or early release.

R v HARRINGTON [2017] NZHC 170 [16 February 2017]

2.If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. That will be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

Sentencing

Background

[3] The background which led to this charge is that at about 9.00 pm on Friday,

12 February 2016, you were with a group of friends on Ferry Road in Christchurch. You were on a bike while the others were walking. The victim, Mr Prue, was not known to your group but was walking in the same direction on Ferry Road. When he passed your group he abused you verbally. You rode after him and caught up with him. He and you then exchanged verbal abuse. He then walked up to you and kicked at you and your bike forcibly and you lost your balance. You then got up and ran at him rugby tackling him to the ground. You placed a carotid hold around your victim’s neck for approximately 20 seconds. Your victim then collapsed and stopped breathing. You released the carotid hold, punched your victim multiple times in the head. You then stood up and kicked him in the head and back. You then attempted CPR for a short time before fleeing the scene. A friend rang you to say the victim was dead and you should return. You returned a short time later and handed yourself into the police. Mr Prue was confirmed deceased by ambulance staff who attended the scene.

[4] In explanation to the police, you said that you had got angry with the verbal abuse from Mr Prue. You initially said you were defending yourself from the attack and you admitted punching him and placing him in a carotid hold.

Principles of Sentencing

[5] In sentencing you today, I am required to follow the relevant purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002. These include to hold you accountable for the harm you have…

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 Harrington

Details

AGLC: R v Harrington [2017] NZHC 170
Case: [2017] NZHC 170
Decision Date: 16 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tony Joe Harrington was convicted of manslaughter after he lost control in a verbal altercation with Mr Prue, resulting in the victim's death. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry. Harrington pleaded guilty to the charge, and the court accepted this plea, leading to a conviction. The court also issued a warning about the implications of the three strikes law, indicating that Harrington would face severe penalties if convicted of another serious violent offence.

The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for Harrington's crime, taking into account the principles of sentencing and the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. The court considered the extent of the violence, the impact on the victim, and Harrington's criminal history. The court also evaluated Harrington's willingness to participate in a restorative justice process and his potential for rehabilitation.

The court reasoned that the violence Harrington used was extreme, as he applied a chokehold to the victim for at least 20 seconds and continued to assault him even after he went motionless. The attack to the head was also a significant aggravating factor. However, the court noted that the incident was spontaneous and not premeditated, and that Harrington returned to the scene and cooperated with the police. The court discounted the starting point for sentencing by 10% for remorse shown and 25% for the guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of four years and nine months' imprisonment.

The court ordered that Harrington be sentenced to imprisonment for four years and nine months, with no minimum period of imprisonment imposed. The court also issued a warning about the consequences of another serious violent conviction under the three strikes law. Harrington's legal team was represented by S G Bailey, Barrister, Christchurch, and Raymond Donnelly & Co., Christchurch.

Orders