R v Hartley - [2012] NZHC 2124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2011-032-000640 [2012] NZHC 2124

THE QUEEN

v

WILLIAM ROBERT HARTLEY

Counsel: M G Sinclair for Crown
M R Bott for Accused

Sentence: 22 August 2012

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Hartley, you appear for sentencing today having been found guilty by a jury of two charges of using a firearm against a member of the police.[1] This charge carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

[1] Crimes Act 1961, s 198A(1).

[2] I note at the outset that the verdict of the jury on those two counts was the only verdict that was reasonably available on the evidence at trial.

Circumstances of the offending

[3] The circumstances of your offending were as follows.

R V HARTLEY HC PMN CRI-2011-032-000640 [22 August 2012]

[4] On 14 February 2011, you assaulted your partner in Levin, but you were unable to be located at the time.

[5] At about 1.00am on the morning of 24 February 2011, the police went to your address. You had been told the police were looking for you, and you saw the police arrive at the address on a CCTV system.

[6] When the police arrived at your address, they could see you were inside the house. They knocked on the door and announced their presence. At this point, one of your associates became obstructive and he was arrested. You retreated to a bedroom at the rear of the house.

[7] The police made their way to the bedroom and spoke to you through the door. They asked you to come out. You barricaded yourself in the bedroom, blocking the door with furniture. The police attempted to negotiate with you, but this failed. The police then managed to force their way into the bedroom.

[8] The first police officer, Constable Moore, entered the bedroom by climbing over the furniture used to block the door. The second police officer, Constable Watkin, stood at the door way. As Constable Moore entered the room, you picked up a loaded .44 rifle from inside a closet. The rifle was cocked and ready to fire.

[9] You presented the rifle directly at Constable Moore. You shouted that you had a firearm and to get out. You then pointed the rifle at Constable Watkin who had entered the room and was facing away from you, about one to one and a half metres away. You presented the rifle in a manner that indicated you might shoot Constable Watkin. Constable Watkin immediately drew his firearm and shot you twice, in the hand and in the arm. You were disarmed and you were subsequently transported to hospital for medical treatment.

[10] A check of the rifle confirmed that it was loaded with one round in the breach, and seven further rounds in the magazine. Two of the rounds were flat

headed and soft tipped which upon penetration cause significant harm. There was no safety catch on the rifle.

[11] When spoken…

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 Hartley

Details

AGLC: R v Hartley [2012] NZHC 2124
Case: [2012] NZHC 2124
Decision Date: 22 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Hartley was heard and decided on 22 August 2012. The defendant, William Robert Hartley, was found guilty by a jury of using a firearm against a member of the police. This charge carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for Hartley, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the offender's personal background.

The legal issues before the court were to determine the appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, and then to weigh any aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to Hartley's personal circumstances. The court needed to balance the purposes of sentencing, which include holding the offender accountable, denouncing the offending, deterring the offender and others from similar conduct, and protecting the community.

The court found that using a firearm against a police officer is a serious offence that requires a significant deterrent sentence. The court adopted a starting point of four years' imprisonment, acknowledging the pre-meditated nature of the offence and its severe impact on the police officers involved. The court also considered Hartley's extensive criminal history, which showed a disregard for law enforcement and a propensity for violence, as an aggravating factor, warranting an uplift of four months. However, the court recognised Hartley's remorse and immediate apology to the police as a mitigating factor, which also warranted a four-month discount. Ultimately, these factors neutralised each other, leading the court to impose a sentence of four years' imprisonment. The court also ordered the destruction of the firearm used in the offending and remitted all outstanding fines. Hartley was also given a first strike warning under s 86B of the Sentencing Act 2002.

Orders