Ellen France P, Randerson, Harrison, Stevens and Miller JJ
Counsel:
M D Downs and Y Moinfar for Appellant C W J Stevenson and S J Gill for Respondent Harrison N P Chisnall and L Freyer for Respondent Turner
Judgment:
10 August 2016 at 10.00 am
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A The appeal against sentence by the Solicitor-General in the case of
Shane Pierre Harrison is dismissed.
BThe appeal against sentence by the Solicitor-General in the case of Justin Vance Turner is allowed in part. The sentence of life imprisonment imposed in the High Court is confirmed but the minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years is set aside and a minimum period of
imprisonment of 17 years is substituted.
R V HARRISON AND R V TURNER [2016] NZCA 381 [10 August 2016]
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Stevens J)
Table of Contents
Para No
Introduction [1] Mr Harrison’s appeal [6] Factual background [7] Personal circumstances of Mr Harrison [15]
Mr Harrison’s sentence [17] Mr Turner’s appeal [22] Factual background [23] Personal circumstances of Mr Turner [27]
Mr Turner’s sentence [31] The sentencing regime for murder and serious violent offending [36] Sections 102 and 103 [36] Section 104 [38] Preventive detention [43]
Scheme for additional consequences for repeat serious
violent offending [47]
Submissions for Solicitor-General [56] Background to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010 [67] The legislative history [67] Policy analysis and purpose [75]
Our analysis of the 2010 legislation [78] Scope of the manifestly unjust exception [78] Our approach to manifestly unjust in s 86E [102]
A declaration of inconsistency? [112] Application of s 86E to Mr Harrison’s appeal [123] Solicitor-General’s submissions [123]
Our evaluation [127] Application of s 86E to Mr Turner’s appeal [134] Solicitor-General’s submissions under s 86E [134] Alternative argument under s 104 [141]
Our evaluation under s 86E [144] Our evaluation under s 104 [150] Result [159]
Introduction
[1] These two appeals by the Solicitor-General raise for the first time in this Court questions of the interpretation and application of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010. Coming into force in May 2010, this legislation amended the Sentencing Act 2002 (and Parole Act 2002) and enacted a suite of reforms to provide
additional consequences for repeated serious violent offending. The statutory purposes were said to be:1
(a) to deny parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders; and
(b)to impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent offences.
[2] The Sentencing and Parole Reform Act is known colloquially as the “three-strikes” legislation. It made significant changes to the Sentencing Act by adding new provisions addressing both types of serious violent offending identified in the statutory purposes. For example, in relation to sentencing an offender for any murder,…
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 Harrison
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Harrison [2016] NZCA 381
Case
[2016] NZCA 381
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed the appeal against sentence by the Solicitor-General in the case of Shane Pierre Harrison, confirming the sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of 13 years. The Court allowed the appeal against sentence in the case of Justin Vance Turner in part, confirming the sentence of life imprisonment but substituting the minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years instead of 15 years. The Court held that the sentencing Judge did not err in concluding it would be manifestly unjust to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole in the case of Mr Harrison, given the circumstances of the stage-1 offence and Mr Harrison's personal circumstances. The Court found that it would be manifestly unjust to sentence Mr Turner to life imprisonment without parole due to his age, mental health issues, and remorse, but concluded that the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment for Mr Turner under section 104 of the Sentencing Act was 17 years, not 15 years.