R v Hughes - [2014] NZHC 3208

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIM PURSUANT TO S 202(1) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI 2013-076-1117 [2014] NZHC 3208

THE QUEEN

v

BLAINE ROSS HUGHES

Hearing: 12 December 2014

Counsel:

A-M McRae for Crown
C Clifford for Mr Hughes

Judgment:

12 December 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Timaru
Timpany Walton, Timaru

R v HUGHES [2014] NZHC 3208 [12 December 2014]

Introduction

[1] Blaine Ross Hughes is for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted murder, one of unlawful possession of a firearm, one of possession of an offensive weapon, one of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, one of theft of a sum in excess of $1,000 and one of burglary. He has already been convicted on each charge and received the necessary three strikes warning.1

[2] When the sentencing was called this afternoon, I was advised by the escort that Mr Hughes was not prepared to come into Court. I asked the escort to tell Mr Hughes that he was required. Having done so, Mr Hughes again declined to enter the dock. Mr Hughes counsel, Ms Clifford, then spoke to Mr Hughes in the cells. He again refused to attend. In those circumstances, I elected to proceed with the sentencing in his absence; something that Ms Clifford had told him would happen if he did not come into Court on the last occasion.

[3] Initially two other charges were laid: one of kidnapping and one of injuring with reckless disregard. The Crown has elected not to offer evidence in support of those charges. Mr Hughes is discharged on each. On those charges, that has the effect of an acquittal.

[4] The lead offence for sentencing purposes is attempted murder, for which the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. The principal issue with which I must grapple today is whether Mr Hughes should be sentenced to a finite term of imprisonment, or to a term of preventive detention.

Summary of facts

[5] On or about 23 September 2013, Mr Hughes began to work for Point Lumber at Washdyke. Between that date and 4 December 2013, he stole three wire ties, two coils of wire, a watch and a petrol can belonging to Point Lumber. The value of the
property was between $1000 and $5000. Those events gave rise to the theft charge.

1 R v Hughes HC Timaru CRI 2013-076-1117 25 July 2014 Dunningham J (Minute), in respect of what occurred in Court on 22 July 2014.

[6] On the night of 18/19 November 2013, Mr Hughes was on Racecourse Road in Washdyke. He climbed over a fence and into the yard of Washdyke Autos. He smashed the window of a caravan and removed various items of camping equipment, electrical equipment and a .22 rifle from inside the caravan. After those items were placed into a wheelbarrow, he took them to his home, about 700 metres away.…

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 [2014] NZHC 3208
Case: [2014] NZHC 3208
Decision Date: 12 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Blaine Ross Hughes stands convicted on multiple charges, including attempted murder, unlawful possession of a firearm, possession of an offensive weapon, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, theft, and burglary. The case required the Court to determine whether Hughes should be sentenced to a finite term of imprisonment or preventive detention. The lead offence for sentencing purposes was attempted murder, with the maximum penalty being 14 years imprisonment. The primary legal issue was whether Hughes should be sentenced to a finite term of imprisonment or to a term of preventive detention. The Court examined Hughes' extensive criminal history, the seriousness of the harm caused, and the risk of reoffending. Despite Hughes' youth, the Court found him to be at high risk of reoffending, leading to the decision for preventive detention. The Court imposed a sentence of preventive detention on the charge of attempted murder, with a minimum term of five years imprisonment. The Court also ordered the confiscation of Hughes' motor vehicle, the payment of emotional harm reparation to the victim, and a permanent order prohibiting the publication of the victim's name or identifying particulars. The confiscation and reparation orders were later cancelled due to uncertainty over the ownership of the vehicle, with leave reserved for the Crown to reapply if appropriate.

Orders