R v Homan - [2017] NZHC 532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2016-063-003777 [2017] NZHC 532

THE QUEEN

v

JOSHUA HOMAN

Hearing: 23 March 2017

Appearances:

A J Gordon for Crown
B J Foote for Defendant

Judgment:

23 March 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GILBERT J

Solicitors:
Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua
B J Foote, Rotorua

R v HOMAN [2017] NZHC 532 [23 March 2017]

Introduction

[1] Joshua Homan, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to rob. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years’ imprisonment.

Facts

[2] On the evening of 20 October 2016, you were smoking methamphetamine with three others. Together, you formulated a plan to rob the victim, a 23-year-old male who was holidaying in New Zealand. The plan was to lure him to a remote location on the pretence of selling him methamphetamine. You would then rob him.

[3] A small amount of salt was put in a plastic bag to represent the methamphetamine. It was agreed that one of your associates would approach the victim at the pre-arranged meeting place and offer the bag for sale.

[4] You took possession of a .3030 Winchester lever-action rifle. Two others in your group were also armed, one with a .22 sawn-off firearm and one with a
12 gauge single-barrel shotgun. All of these firearms were loaded that evening.

[5] At about 10.40 pm, a fifth associate drove the four of you to a car park serving a walking track situated on the outskirts of Rotorua. You and your two armed associates hid in the bushes while the other two left in the vehicle to wait for the victim to arrive. When the victim arrived about 15 minutes later, your associates returned and shone their car headlights on full beam directly at the victim’s car. The driver remained in the car while the other associate got into the front passenger seat of the victim’s car and offered him the bag containing the salt in exchange for money.

[6] You and your other two associates then came out from the bushes, armed with the firearms. You approached the victim’s car together and demanded money. The associate with the sawn-off .22 placed this firearm through the open driver’s side window and demanded that the victim hand over his “loot”. He then shot the victim in the thigh and hit him on the head with the firearm.

[7] The associate in the front passenger seat then began to wrestle with the victim. However, the victim managed to escape from the vehicle. As he ran away, he screamed that you could take his vehicle. At this point, your associates yelled out “shoot him, shoot him”.

[8] As the victim was running away, you shot him in the back with the .3030 rifle you were carrying. The victim fell to the ground immediately and rolled into a drain to the side of the car park and road. Without checking on the victim, you and your associates got…

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 Homan

Details

AGLC: R v Homan [2017] NZHC 532
Case: [2017] NZHC 532
Decision Date: 23 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joshua Homan was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand for causing grievous bodily harm with intent to rob. Homan pleaded guilty to this charge, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. The incident occurred on 20 October 2016, where Homan and his associates planned to rob a 23-year-old male who was holidaying in New Zealand. They lured him with the pretence of selling him methamphetamine and subsequently assaulted him, with Homan shooting him in the back as he fled. The victim suffered serious injuries and was hospitalised for four days, requiring two operations. The court was required to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing, taking into account the aggravating factors of the crime, including premeditation, the number of participants, and the use of firearms. The court also had to consider personal factors, such as Homan's background and history of drug abuse, and whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment.

The court found that Homan's offending fell at the lower end of band 3 in the Court of Appeal's guideline judgment in R v Taueki, indicating a starting point of no less than nine years' imprisonment. The court agreed with the Crown and Homan's counsel that the appropriate starting point was ten years' imprisonment. The court also considered the discount for Homan's early guilty plea, which reduced his adjusted sentence to seven years and six months' imprisonment. The court found that a minimum period of imprisonment was necessary to hold Homan accountable for the harm done to the victim and the community, to denounce his conduct, and to deter others from committing similar offences. The court decided to impose a minimum term of three years' imprisonment, which it considered to be the least restrictive outcome appropriate in all of the circumstances.

Homan was sentenced to seven years and six months' imprisonment, with a minimum term of three years' imprisonment. This sentence reflects the seriousness of the crime, the use of firearms, and the need to protect the community. The court also took into account Homan's age, lack of relevant prior convictions, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court's decision to impose a minimum period of imprisonment is in line with the legislative intent of s 86 of the Sentencing Act. The court's sentence sends a clear message that such conduct will not be tolerated and that there are serious consequences for those who engage in it.

Orders