R v Haywood-Dodd - [2019] NZHC 1612

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2018-488-34

[2019] NZHC 1612

THE QUEEN

v

CHAYCE HAYWARD-DODD

Hearing: 11 July 2019

Appearances:

S Barnaart for the Crown

JAG Moroney, on behalf of S Gray, for the Defendant

Judgment:

11 July 2019

SENTENCE OF GAULT J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Ms S Barnaart, Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Whangarei Ms S Gray, Barrister, Auckland
Mr J Moroney, Thode Utting & Co., Auckland

R v HAYWARD-DODD [2019] NZHC 1612 [11 July 2019]

[1] Mr Hayward-Dodd has pleaded guilty to one charge of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter. His plea follows a sentence indication I gave on 12 June 2019.

[2] The offending is related to the killing of Mr Harris by Mr Nicky Dodd. In brief, Mr Dodd fired a shotgun towards a house where there were a number of people from a rival chapter of the Tribesmen motor cycle club. One of the pellets struck and killed Mr Harris. Mr Dodd is Mr Hayward-Dodd’s father. Immediately after the shooting, Mr Dodd drove to Mr Hayward-Dodd’s house and told him that he needed to leave his car parked around the side of the house where it was unlikely it would be found by police, and that he was leaving the shotgun at his house as he did not want to be travelling with it in the event of being stopped by police. Mr Dodd left his car there and concealed the shotgun inside. Mr Hayward-Dodd allowed this to happen.

[3] As there is very little in dispute, I annex my sentence indication to this sentencing and it will form part of it, so I do not repeat the background and how I came to the indicated sentence, except to say that I indicated a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment, which, with a 20 per cent discount for a guilty plea, came to 12 months’ imprisonment. I also indicated that a non-custodial sentence would be likely if there were a favourable pre-sentence report and no cogent objections from the Crown. I did not address any discounts for mitigating features personal to Mr Hayward-Dodd at that stage. I will now address the pre-sentence report, the affidavits, and then come to the appropriate sentence.

[4] A favourable pre-sentence report was forthcoming, accompanied by affidavits from Mr Hayward-Dodd; his wife, Ms Tana; and his mother-in-law, Mrs Tana. Mr Hayward-Dodd seeks a sentence of community detention. The Crown accepts that is the appropriate sentence.

Pre-sentence report

[5] Mr Hayward-Dodd is 21 years old (he was 19 at the time of the offending). He is of Māori descent. He is married to Ms Tana, and they have three young children. He has no previous criminal convictions. He and Ms Tana have been together for seven years, and married for two. Although his father is a member of the Tribesmen,

he is not. He reports that he was sheltered from the gang as a child…

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 Haywood-Dodd

Details

AGLC: R v Haywood-Dodd [2019] NZHC 1612
Case: [2019] NZHC 1612
Decision Date: 11 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Chayce Hayward-Dodd addresses the defendant's plea of guilty to being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the nature of the offence, the defendant's personal circumstances, and the impact on his family, as well as the principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 2002.

The legal issues the court had to decide included the appropriate starting point for sentencing, any potential discounts for the defendant's personal mitigating factors and his guilty plea, and whether a non-custodial sentence was suitable. The court noted the seriousness of the offence, given the concealment of evidence related to a manslaughter, but also acknowledged the defendant's lack of previous convictions and the familial pressure he faced.

The court's reasoning led to the conclusion that a sentence of community detention was appropriate. This decision was based on the favourable pre-sentence report, which highlighted the defendant's low risk of re-offending and the absence of any need for rehabilitative interventions. The affidavits from the defendant, his wife, and his mother-in-law further supported the need for a sentence that would allow the defendant to continue supporting his young family. The court imposed a sentence of six months' community detention, which included a curfew, considering it the least restrictive outcome that adequately met the purposes of denunciation, deterrence, and promoting a sense of responsibility.

The final orders of the court were that Chayce Hayward-Dodd was to be sentenced to six months’ community detention for being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter, with a curfew from 8:00 pm to 5:00 am at the specified address.

Orders