R v Harris - [2016] NZHC 1687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2015-029-310 [2016] NZHC 1687

THE QUEEN

v

PAUL EDWARD HARRIS

Hearing: 22 July 2016

Counsel:

BM OʼConnor for Crown
AB Fairley and AM Harvey for defendant

Sentenced:

22 July 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF FAIRE J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
Thomason Wilson, Whangarei

R v Harris [2016] NZHC 1687 [22 July 2016]

Contents

Background ............................................................................................................[1] Facts .......................................................................................................................[4] Purposes and Principles of Sentencing ................................................................[13] Victim impact statements .....................................................................................[15] Sentencing Approach ...........................................................................................[19]
Crown submissions  [20]
Defendant’s submissions  [23] Personal circumstances ........................................................................................[25]
Sentencing ..................................................................................................................
Case law  [28] Adjusting the starting point  [40] Minimum period of imprisonment  [43]

Orders ...................................................................................................................[44]

Background

[1] Paul Edward Harris, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to manslaughter,1 for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.2

[2] The victim was Mr Joseph Rowland Keogh. You were originally charged with his murder, however, complications arose during trial and the Crown accepted a guilty plea to the charge of manslaughter.

[3] I am going to shortly summarise the facts, then I will explain the factors I

must consider when I sentence you, and then I will pass sentence.

Facts

[4] I set out the agreed facts on which you pleaded guilty.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 171.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 177.

[5] You live on a farm about 10 minutes drive from Kaitaia. Mr Keogh lived on a nearby farm house with his partner and his four children.

[6] On Saturday 11 April 2015, two of Mr Keogh’s sisters came to stay at Mr Keogh’s family home. At that time they were aged 11 and 13. To entertain the children, Mr Keogh offered to take them possum shooting and they left the house in a four wheel drive vehicle when it got dark. Also with Mr Keogh and his sisters were two of Mr Keogh’s children aged 10 and three.

[7] They took an air rifle belonging to one of Mr Keogh’s sisters and a spotlight. They travelled around nearby roads, spotting, shooting and plucking possums for fur. At about 10 pm they were at the intersection of Fisher-Riley and Fairburn Roads when you approached the vehicle on a farm quad bike.

[8] You and Mr Keogh exchanged comments. You walked around to the front of the vehicle and then returned to the driver’s door of the vehicle. You and Mr Keogh then started arguing, you were saying that you would call the police. Mr Keogh told you that it was only an air rifle that they were using and that he did not need a licence for it. Mr Keogh lifted the air rifle from where it was. There was a struggle during which the air rifle was pointed at you and punches were exchanged.

[9] During the struggle, you managed to pull Mr Keogh part way out the driver’s door window. You then reached and took a knife from your quad bike and stabbed Mr Keogh in the chest. Mr Keogh then got out of the vehicle,…

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 [2016] NZHC 1687
Case: [2016] NZHC 1687
Decision Date: 22 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Whangarei Registry, the case of R v Harris involved the sentencing of Paul Edward Harris, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The victim, Mr Joseph Rowland Keogh, was fatally stabbed during an altercation. The court considered the aggravating factors, including the use of a knife and the presence of children during the incident, which warranted a serious sentence. Victim impact statements highlighted the profound emotional and psychological trauma experienced by Mr Keogh's family. The court applied the principles from R v Taueki, assessing the seriousness of the offence and culpability, and considered comparable cases to determine an appropriate starting point of six years and nine months. After accounting for mitigating factors such as Harris's good character and guilty plea, the final sentence was set at five years and nine months imprisonment.

The reasoning process began by establishing the severity of the manslaughter charge, the use of a weapon, and the impact on the victim's family. The court evaluated the mitigating arguments of self-defence and provocation but found that Harris's actions were not justified as excessive self-defence. The comparison with other cases helped to adjust the starting point downwards, considering the specific circumstances of the offence. Ultimately, the sentence was designed to denounce the conduct, protect the community, and provide a just outcome for the victim's family while considering Harris's personal circumstances and the mitigating factors presented.

Orders