R v Harris - [2023] NZHC 1475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-090-4273

[2023] NZHC 1475

THE KING

v

DYLAN HARRIS ADAM MAIAKI NORTH

JASMINE MURRAY

Hearing: 9 and 12 June 2023

Appearances:

B D Tantrum for Crown

D J Dufty and S Kumar (on instructions from R M Mansfield KC) for Defendant Harris
S N B Wimsett for Defendant North
L O Smith and P K Hamlin for Defendant Murray

Sentence:

12 June 2023

SENTENCE OF PAUL DAVISON J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R v HARRIS & ORS [2023] NZHC 1475 [12 June 2023]

[1] Dylan Harris, Adam North, and Jasmine Murray, you have each been found guilty and convicted of the crime of manslaughter following the fatal shooting of Robert Hart on 5 November 2021. You now appear before the Court this morning for sentence. Although the maximum penalty for the crime of manslaughter is life imprisonment, at the conclusion of this hearing I shall impose a determinate sentence for a fixed period on each of you.

[2] In sentencing you I will commence by briefly summarising your offending. I will then outline the approach I will take to deciding the appropriate sentence to impose for the manslaughter offending and to determining an appropriate starting point for the sentence for each of you which will be informed in each case by the role you played and by my assessment of your respective culpability. In determining the starting point for your sentences I will have regard to the sentences imposed on other defendants convicted of manslaughter so as to ensure that the sentence I impose on each of you is consistent with those imposed on other defendants for comparable offending. I will then explain my reasons for adjusting that starting point having regard to any aggravating factors or mitigating factors that apply to your offending. I will then consider whether there are any mitigating factors relating to your personal backgrounds and circumstances which warrant a discount or reduction from the adjusted starting point I have adopted. That process will lead me to the sentences that I impose.

[3] However, I commence by acknowledging once again the presence of members of Mr Hart’s family, and friends who are here in Court this morning. For those members of his family who were present throughout the trial to listen to the evidence regarding the deception employed by the defendants to lure Mr Hart to a rendezvous for the ostensible purpose of doing a drug deal with a young woman he knew, and then found himself confronted by an armed Mr Harris demanding drugs and intent on robbing him, who then recklessly discharged that weapon with a shot striking him in the head and killing him, listening to all that must have been and obviously was an intensely distressing process for all of you. As the emotional impact statements read by members of Mr Hart’s family last Friday morning clearly showed, Mr Hart’s death has caused them…

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 Harris

Details

AGLC: R v Harris [2023] NZHC 1475
Case: [2023] NZHC 1475
Decision Date: 12 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Dylan Harris, Adam North, and Jasmine Murray were convicted of manslaughter following the fatal shooting of Robert Hart on 5 November 2021. The court imposed sentences of seven years and eleven months, seven years and seven months, and four years and six months, respectively. The court considered the nature of the offending, which involved a high degree of premeditation, including the use of a stolen phone to impersonate a woman and deceive Hart into a meeting where he would be robbed at gunpoint. The court found that the use of a loaded weapon and the vulnerability of the victim were significant aggravating factors. The court also considered personal mitigating factors, such as the defendants' backgrounds, remorse, and efforts at rehabilitation, in determining the sentences.

Orders