R v Hughes - [2025] NZHC 995

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-009-0002013

[2025] NZHC 995

THE KING

v

KATHERINE MARY HUGHES

Hearing: 29 April 2025

Appearances:

P N M Brown and L Fiennes for Crown O K Jarvis for Defendant

Sentencing Notes:

29 April 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF EATON J

R v HUGHES [2025] NZHC 995 [29 April 2025]

Introduction

[1] Katherine Mary Hughes, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a charge of attempting to wound your elderly husband, Christopher Robin Hughes, with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm.1

[2] In sentencing you I will first outline the factual background of your offending, then turn to setting a starting point for the sentence I am going to impose. I will make adjustments to that starting point to reflect your personal circumstances. But I recognise from the outset, as has been acknowledged by both counsel, that this is a difficult sentencing exercise because your offending has a number of novel features that counsel have been unable to find present in any other cases that I have been referred to.

Factual background

[3] The facts of your offending have been captured in a prosecution summary of facts. It is a summary that you admit, and it is the proper basis for today’s sentencing. You will be fully familiar with the facts, but sentencing is a public process. It is important that I refer to those facts.

[4] You are 69 years old. You and Mr Hughes have been married for over 50 years now. Mr Hughes has advanced Parkinson’s Disease (Parkinson’s), and you were his sole caregiver. You and Mr Hughes slept in separate rooms in your Christchurch home.

[5] On 1 February 2023, you were both at home. At about 6.20 pm, Mr Hughes was asleep in his bed. He woke to find you sitting on the edge of his bed. You were shaking and you told him “I’m going to end it for both of us”. You were armed with a large blue handled carving knife.

[6] You produced the knife, and you raised it above your head. Mr Hughes immediately understood both from your words and actions that you were going to stab him and then take your own life. He managed to grab you by the wrists and you both

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 188(1), 72 and 311; maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

wrestled to gain control of the knife. Due to his health issues, he found it difficult to disarm you. The struggle that had commenced in Mr Hughes’ bedroom continued in the living room. It was only then he was able to knock the knife from your hand. He then briefly left you so he could trigger his St John Ambulance monitored alarm in order to summon help.

[7] While he was doing that, you picked up the knife and whilst holding it in one hand, you started swinging a stick vacuum cleaner at Mr…

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 Hughes

Details

AGLC: R v Hughes [2025] NZHC 995
Case: [2025] NZHC 995
Decision Date: 29 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Katherine Mary Hughes pleaded guilty to attempting to wound her husband, Christopher Robin Hughes, with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm. The sentencing hearing took place on 29 April 2025 before Eaton J. The primary legal issues the court had to decide were the appropriate starting point for sentencing and the extent of any deductions that should be applied to this starting point, based on various mitigating factors. The court needed to consider the seriousness of the offence, the premeditation involved, the vulnerability of the victim, the breach of trust, and the use of a lethal weapon. The court also had to assess the defendant's personal circumstances, including her plea of guilty, her remorse, her previous good character, and her mental health at the time of the offence.

The court determined that the attempted murder cases relied on by both counsel were not analogous due to the differing motivations behind the offending. The court found that Hughes' actions were driven by her own suffering and desperation, rather than a desire to end her husband's suffering. The aggravating factors of the case, such as premeditation and the breach of trust, led the court to set a starting point of three years and two months' imprisonment. After considering various mitigating factors, including Hughes' guilty plea, previous good character, and mental health, the court deducted a total of 30% from the starting point. This led to a sentence of 26 months' imprisonment. However, due to concerns about Hughes' imminent release and need for support, the court allowed a further two-month deduction, resulting in a final sentence of 24 months' imprisonment.

The court also imposed special conditions on Hughes' release, including attending psychological and alcohol treatment assessments, abstaining from alcohol and drugs, and not contacting her husband. A protection order was also made to prohibit any contact between Hughes and her husband.

Orders