R v Ianuali CA286/06

The Crown applied for leave to appeal against sentences of imprisonment imposed on the respondent by Judge Davidson in the District Court. The respondent was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment for injuring a woman with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and six months imprisonment for assaulting a second female, both sentences to run concurrently. Leave was granted to the respondent to apply for home detention, and special release conditions were imposed. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. The respondent, a 17-year-old Tokelauan with a sheltered upbringing, had been at a party when he was attacked and his nose broken. He assaulted two females after leaving the party, causing serious injuries to one of them. The Judge accepted the possibility of the respondent suffering from a traumatic brain injury and diminished responsibility due to alcohol and cannabis use. The Crown argued that the starting point should be four to six years imprisonment, but the Judge set a starting point of three years. The Court of Appeal held that a starting point of four to six years would be appropriate, but the ultimate sentence of 15 months imprisonment was merciful and a carefully considered response to the competing needs of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The carefully constructed special release conditions must be taken into account as a component of the sentence.

The final orders were that the application for leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The respondent had absorbed a hard lesson in prison and justice had been done to his major victim. The highly fact-specific sentence could provide no precedent authority, and the facts were sufficiently unusual to justify what, while certainly merciful, was a carefully considered response to the competing needs of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation of a young man whose offending had been influenced to a significant extent by the concussion for which he was not morally to blame.