R v Henry - [2021] NZHC 3379

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2021-019-2064

2021 NZHC 3379

THE QUEEN

v

SHANNON JOSEPH HENRY

Hearing: 9 December 2021

Appearances:

J N Hamilton for the Crown

K W Burroughs for the defendant

Judgment:

9 December 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF HARLAND J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Hamilton Legal, Crown Solicitor at Hamilton K Burroughs, Hamilton

R v HENRY 2021 NZHC 3379 [9 December 2021]

Introduction

[1] Mr Henry, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm,1 one charge of converting a motor vehicle,2 and one charge of unlawfully carrying a firearm.3 The lead charge is the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

[2] The incident which led to these charges arose from a routine traffic stop during which you presented a shotgun and fired it at close range at a lone and unarmed police officer. As we have heard, he was seriously injured as a result.

[3] You are a young man of only 23 years of age, but because of what occurred, it is inevitable that a lengthy period of imprisonment must be imposed. The issues for me to address are what the starting point for the term of imprisonment should be, what the deductions from it for mitigating matters personal to you should be, and whether I should impose a minimum period of imprisonment that you must serve before parole can be considered.

[4] As I have said, there is a process I must follow in sentencing you. I first address your offending before dealing with your personal circumstances.

The offending

[5] The officer concerned, a police sergeant, was travelling alone in a marked patrol vehicle shortly before midnight on 9 July 2021, when he observed the vehicle in which you were a passenger and conducted a routine traffic stop.

[6] He approached the stopped vehicle and spoke with the driver who provided false details. The officer noticed that there was also a front seat passenger in the car who was attempting to obscure his face with a scarf. That person was you. He walked

1 Crimes Act 1960, s 188(1).
2 Crimes Act 1960, s 226(1).
3 Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(a).

around to the passenger side of the vehicle where he spoke with you. He identified you because he had dealt with you before.

[7] The officer knew that there was a warrant for your arrest, so he moved out of earshot where he used his police radio to request assistance from other police units. He then returned to the vehicle you were in to remove the keys from the ignition. As he did so, the driver of the vehicle held onto the officer’s hand attempting to wrestle the keys back from him. While this was happening, you got out of the front passenger seat.

[8] Concerned by your sudden movement, the officer dropped the keys inside…

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 Henry

Details

AGLC: R v Henry [2021] NZHC 3379
Case: [2021] NZHC 3379
Decision Date: 9 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Henry involved Shannon Joseph Henry who was charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, converting a motor vehicle, and unlawfully carrying a firearm. The charges stemmed from an incident where Henry fired a shotgun at a police officer during a routine traffic stop. The officer survived but was seriously injured. Henry pleaded guilty to all charges. The court needed to determine the appropriate starting point for the term of imprisonment, consider any mitigating or aggravating personal factors, and decide if a minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed before parole could be considered.

The court considered the seriousness of the offending, including Henry's culpability, and the impact on the victim, his family, and the police force. The lead charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm carried a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The court adopted a starting point of 13 years imprisonment, uplifted by one year to reflect the victim being a police officer, the unlawful possession of the firearm, and the conversion charge. The court also considered comparable cases and found that a starting point of 13 years was appropriate.

Personal mitigating factors included Henry's difficult upbringing, exposure to violence and substance abuse, mental health issues, and genuine remorse. A 40% discount from the starting point was applied, resulting in an overall term of imprisonment of seven years and eight months. The court also imposed a 50% minimum period of imprisonment before parole could be considered, to achieve the purposes outlined in the Sentencing Act.

The final orders were that Henry be sentenced to seven years and eight months imprisonment for the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, two years imprisonment for the charge of conversion of a motor vehicle, and three years imprisonment for the charge of unlawfully carrying a firearm, to be served concurrently. A copy of the cultural report was to be made available to the prison authorities and Parole Board.

Orders