R v Hooper - [2021] NZHC 62

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2020-016-1093

[2021] NZHC 62

THE QUEEN

v

MANDY GENESIS YVETTE HOOPER

Hearing: 3 February 2021

Appearances:

S B Manning for the Crown

V L Thorpe/A W Clarke for the Defendant

Judgment:

3 February 2021

SENTENCING OF COOKE J

[1] Ms Hooper you are in Court today to be sentenced following your guilty plea to the charge of arson under s 267(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961. That guilty plea follows the withdrawal of the additional charge of attempted murder which you originally faced.

[2]In addressing what sentence should be imposed I take the following steps:

(a)I will first describe the facts of your offending;

(b)I will then assess what sentence of imprisonment would usually be imposed for that offending with reference to other similar cases — that is an assessment of what the starting point would be;

R v HOOPER [2021] NZHC 62 [3 February 2021]

(c)I will then consider whether there should be any upward or downward adjustment to that starting point because of factors personal to you;

(d)I will then impose a discount to recognise your guilty plea, and assess what that discount should be; and

(e)I will then address whether the sentence of imprisonment should be converted to a sentence of home detention.

[3] I can say to you from the outset that I agree with the submissions that have been made by the Crown and your counsel that the sentence I should impose should be one of home detention. The final step that I will take will be to set the period of home detention taking into account the time you have already spent in custody, and on EM bail, and also what conditions concerning rehabilitation programmes should be involved and for how long.

Facts of the offending

[4] So the first step is to describe the facts of your offending. The events occurred on 22 June 2020 at your father’s home in Tologa Bay. You had been living with your father for about nine months at that time.

[5] The victim was your uncle, and he was also living at the property at the time in his tent. You did not like that. The formal advice I have received in the reports record that you and he have some history, and that you indicate you have reason to resent him. You had told him to leave your father’s address on numerous occasions as you perceived that he was not paying his way. That was often when you were aggressive and intoxicated.

[6] At 6.30 am on 22 June your uncle was alone asleep in his tent. You went out to his tent taking a full container of petrol from a shed with you. You called out to see whether he was inside, and when he replied that he was you told him “this is your final warning, pack your swag and get out of here or I will…

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 Hooper

Details

AGLC: R v Hooper [2021] NZHC 62
Case: [2021] NZHC 62
Decision Date: 3 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Gisborne Registry, Mandy Genesis Yvette Hooper was sentenced for a charge of arson under the Crimes Act 1961. The court heard the case on 3 February 2021, with S B Manning representing the Crown and V L Thorpe/A W Clarke representing the defendant. The court addressed the appropriate sentence following Hooper's guilty plea, which followed the withdrawal of a more serious charge of attempted murder. The court determined the appropriate sentence through a series of steps, including assessing the facts of the offending, establishing a starting point for sentencing, considering personal circumstances, applying a discount for the guilty plea, and deciding whether home detention would be an appropriate sentence.

The court found that Hooper's actions were premeditated and placed her uncle in real danger, though the property damage was relatively minor. The court concluded that a starting point of three years' imprisonment was appropriate, given the seriousness of the offending. However, the court also considered Hooper's personal circumstances, including her mental health struggles and alcohol dependence, which were found to moderately lower her culpability. The court applied a 15% discount to the starting point, taking into account these personal factors. The court also applied a 25% discount for Hooper's guilty plea, which led to a total discount of approximately 40% from the starting point. The court concluded that a sentence of one year and ten months' imprisonment was appropriate, but decided that home detention would be a more suitable option for Hooper, given her personal circumstances and the need for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were to sentence Hooper to five months' home detention, with special conditions related to rehabilitation programs, to be served at her mother's address. The special conditions would remain in place until 31 December 2021, allowing time for Hooper to participate in the recommended rehabilitation programs and address her drug and alcohol use.

Orders