R v Henry - [2018] NZHC 1893

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2016-009-009047

[2018] NZHC 1893

THE QUEEN

v

LUKE JAMES HENRY

Hearing: 27 July 2018

Appearances:

B Hawes and C C White for Crown J Lucas for Defendant

Judgment:

27 July 2018

Reissued:

27 July 2018

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

NOTE: These sentencing notes were recalled and re-issued later in the afternoon of Friday 27 July and are to be read in conjunction with Gendall J’s minute of the same date.

R v HENRY [2018] NZHC 1983 [27 July 2018]

[1] Mr Henry, I am going to ask you to stand later. You may remain seated at the moment and I will ask you to stand at the conclusion of my sentencing remarks.

[2] Before I begin, can I just remind members of the media here, and all present, that there is a continuing suppression order relating to the complainant and any details which might identify the complainant in this case.

[3] Luke James Henry, you appear today for sentencing after being found guilty by a jury of:

(a)two counts of rape, which each carry a maximum possible penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment;

(b)one count of breaching a protection order, which carries a maximum possible penalty of three years’ imprisonment;

(c)two counts of male assaults female, which each carry a maximum possible penalty of two years’ imprisonment; and

(d)one count of kidnapping, which carries a maximum possible penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

[4] You are also being sentenced today for two related charges of male assaults female and one of breaching your release conditions, all of which you pleaded guilty to.

Facts of offending

[5] First I am going to being by setting out the facts that gave rise to and formed the basis for these charges, reasonably briefly.

[6] The victim of your offending, Mr Henry, was your ex-partner. On the evening of 30 November 2015, you went to her address and banged on the door. She told you to leave but you refused. The police were called and issued you with a trespass notice.

You refused to comply so they arrested you. You were convicted and sentenced to a short term of imprisonment.

[7] After being released in February 2016, you began seeing the victim again. However, she then broke the relationship off. You continued to ring and text her. She let you stay at her address and you ended up staying for a few weeks. During that period, you assaulted the victim three times, giving rise to three charges of male assaults female.

[8] On the first occasion, after an argument, you placed your hands around the victim’s neck and pushed her against the wall so that she could not breathe. On the second occasion, you blamed the victim for something you got angry over. You choked the victim…

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 [2018] NZHC 1893
Case: [2018] NZHC 1893
Decision Date: 27 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luke James Henry was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for various charges, including two counts of rape, one count of breaching a protection order, two counts of male assaults female, and one count of kidnapping. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Henry, considering both the severity of his crimes and his history of violent offending. The key legal issue was whether Henry should be sentenced to preventive detention or a lengthy fixed term of imprisonment. The court considered multiple factors, including the pattern of serious offending, the seriousness of the harm to the community, the likelihood of reoffending, and the absence of efforts to address the causes of his offending. After reviewing reports from clinical psychologists and assessing Henry's criminal history, the court concluded that preventive detention was necessary to adequately protect the community from the significant risk Henry posed. Consequently, Henry was sentenced to preventive detention for the rape charges, with a minimum term of imprisonment of eight years, and concurrent sentences for the other charges.

Orders