R v Jenkins - [2013] NZHC 95

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-019-1787 [2013] NZHC 95

THE QUEEN

v

HELENA SHAQUALIN VALLERIE JENKINS

Hearing: 7 February 2013

Counsel: R G Douch for Crown
R Laybourn for Prisoner

Judgment: 7 February 2013

SENTENCE OF KATZ J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Hamilton – rgd@almaodouch.co.nz

Copy to: R Laybourn, Hamilton – laybournlaw@xtra.co.nz

R V JENKINS HC HAM CRI-2012-019-1787 [7 February 2013]

Introduction

[1] Helena Jenkins, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.[1]

Facts

[1] Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1).

[2] On the evening of 17 March, you and a female associate were drinking with the victim at his unit. The three of you then went into town where you consumed more alcohol.

[3] Later, the three of you returned to the victim’s unit. You and the victim argued and he was verbally abusive and insulting towards you. He then went to bed. You were deeply angered by the insults and verbal abuse by the victim. You went into the kitchen, took a 25cm knife from the drawer and used it to repeatedly stab the victim.

[4] You and your associate then went outside where you instructed her not to contact the authorities. You then returned to the unit and locked the door. Fortunately your associate alerted others, and the Police and an ambulance were called. When they arrived at the unit they had to break down the door, as you refused to open it. The victim was then taken to Waikato hospital in a critical condition, where he underwent surgery. He eventually recovered.

[5] The medical evidence is that the victim had 18 individual injuries. These included a complete severance of the left ear, a stab in the neck below the left ear and a wound that passed straight through the full thickness of the victim’s bicep and entered his chest.

[6] In explanation, you stated that you had snapped as a direct consequence of the verbal abuse directed at you by the victim.

Purposes and principles of sentencing

[7] In sentencing you today, I must take into account the purposes and principles provided for under the Sentencing Act 2002.[2] I must hold you accountable for the harm done to the victim and endeavour to instil a sense of responsibility in you for that harm. I need to denounce and deter your conduct as well as consider the victim’s interests. The sentence I hand down to you today must reflect the overall gravity of your offending. I must also ensure that the sentence is consistent with those handed down for similar types of offending.

Sentencing process

[2] Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7 and 8.

[8] When deciding on an appropriate sentence I must consider your offending in isolation, removed from any features personal to you. That will lead to a starting point for your sentence. Secondly, I must make any necessary adjustments for features that are personal to you. Finally, I…

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 Jenkins

Details

AGLC: R v Jenkins [2013] NZHC 95
Case: [2013] NZHC 95
Decision Date: 7 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Helena Jenkins appeared in the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, for sentencing following her guilty plea to causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The incident occurred on 17 March, where Jenkins, after a night of drinking with the victim, stabbed him multiple times, causing severe injuries. The Court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 2002, including accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and victim considerations. The court assessed the severity of the offence, noting the extreme violence, serious injury caused, and use of a lethal weapon. The court also considered the mitigating factors, such as provocation, albeit verbal, and Jenkins' troubled background and mental health issues.

The starting point for the sentence was set at ten years, towards the lower end of Band 3, as outlined by the Court of Appeal in R v Taueki. After applying discounts for provocation and personal circumstances, including Jenkins' remorse and commitment to rehabilitation, the sentence was reduced to five years and seven months. The court decided against imposing a minimum term of imprisonment, opting to leave the timing of Jenkins' release to the Parole Board. The final sentence was five years and seven months imprisonment, with Jenkins also receiving a three strikes warning regarding future serious violent offences.

The court's judgment underscores the balance between addressing the gravity of the offence and considering the individual circumstances of the offender, ensuring the sentence is both just and rehabilitative.

Orders