R v Holman - [2014] NZHC 438

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI 2012-076-000589 [2014] NZHC 438

REGINA

v

JOHNNY GRANT HOLMAN

Hearing: 7 March 2014

Counsel: A R McRae and N Willcocks for Crown
JHM Eaton QC for Accused

Judgment: 7 March 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WHATA J

[1] Mr Holman you face sentence for one count of manslaughter. The maximum sentence of penalty is life imprisonment.

Facts

[2] I will now record the facts of the offending for the purposes of your sentencing. I have had the benefit of reviewing your interview helpfully provided by your counsel. I have also had the evidence of Mr Simpson, who was present when you attacked Mr Braddick.

[3] In the early hours of 11 May 2012 you met the victim, Mr Braddick, at Malbas Bar. Mr Braddick wanted to buy cannabis and you knew where to get some. You then travelled together to a York St address. You were joined there by three associates, including Mr Simpson. You and Mr Braddick went into the address and
obtained a cannabis tinnie. Mr Braddick then said he could not pay for it.

R v HOLMAN [2014] NZHC 438 [7 March 2014]

[4] You returned to the house to give the tinnie to the vendor. You said to the vendor that you were going to give Mr Braddick a “hiding”. You then rejoined the others on the street and without warning head butted Mr Braddick. You also punched him, in your words, with three uppercuts to the head. He then fell to the ground at which point, again in your words, you kicked him twice to the head.

[5] Mr Simpson gave evidence that you kicked him three times to the head region “like real real hard, like... you’d kick a rugby ball or something, real hard”.

[6] You deny this and there were obvious problems with Mr Simpson’s evidence. He appeared to concede under cross-examination that he did not in fact see the kicks to the head. In any event, Mr Braddick was left bleeding and unconscious by your very serious acts of violence. I am prepared to accept that you initially interpreted a movement by Mr Braddick in your direction as potentially aggressive. But you were also intent, as you stated, on giving him a hiding. I will proceed to sentence you on that basis.

[7] By this time you realised that Mr Braddick was in a bad way and you left with your associates, without it appears providing medical assistance although Mr Braddick was found in a recovery position. You did however stop at a phone booth and called an ambulance. You said on that call that Mr Braddick was “out cold”.

[8] Mr Braddick died later that morning.

[9] Mr Sage, an expert pathologist, described the nature of the injuries in this way:

Shane William BRADDICK died at Timaru on 11 May 2012 between 03:00 and 4:00 in the context of a blunt force assault in which he sustained only relatively minor injuries…

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 Holman

Details

AGLC: R v Holman [2014] NZHC 438
Case: [2014] NZHC 438
Decision Date: 7 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Regina v Johnny Grant Holman involved a charge of manslaughter against the defendant, Holman. The court heard the facts of the case, including the details of the assault on the victim, Shane William Braddick, which led to his death. The evidence presented indicated that Holman had headbutted and punched Braddick multiple times, leading to his unconsciousness and subsequent death due to a combination of the assault and pre-existing heart conditions. The court also considered Holman's personal circumstances, including his history of violent offending, substance abuse, and participation in gang activities, alongside mitigating factors such as his early guilty plea, remorse, and participation in a restorative justice process.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the nature and context of the violence, and assessing the mitigating and aggravating factors relevant to Holman's personal circumstances. The court had to balance the need for denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation with the principles of consistency and proportionality in sentencing. The submissions from both the Crown and Holman's counsel were considered in reaching the final sentence.

The court's reasoning led to the conclusion that Holman's offending fell within Band 2 of the sentencing bands for grievous bodily harm, given the intent to cause serious harm, the ongoing nature of the violence, and the failure to provide substantial medical assistance. The court determined a starting point of six years and three months but applied discounts for Holman's remorse, early guilty plea, and participation in restorative justice, resulting in a final sentence of three years and nine months imprisonment, with a minimum term of 22½ months to be served. The court also issued a three strikes warning, highlighting the severe consequences of any future serious violent offences.

Orders