R v Job - [2018] NZHC 2543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-092-9967

[2018] NZHC 2543

THE QUEEN

v

NEVILLE JOHN JOB

Hearing: 28 September 2018

Appearances:

M S Williams for the Crown M N Pecotic for the Defendant

Sentencing:

28 September 2018

SENTENCING BY PALMER J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Crown Solicitor, Manukau Ms M N Pecotic, Barrister, Auckland

R v JOB [2018] NZHC 2543 [28 September 2018]

Introduction

[1] Mr Neville Job, aged 40 of Ngāti Kahu, pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with reckless disregard for the safety of his then-partner in August 2017. The offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.1 I sentence him today.

Approach to sentencing

[2] Sentencing is conducted for the purposes, and according to the principles, set out in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002. In this case, I have particular regard to the purposes of holding Mr Job accountable for the harm done to the victim and community; promoting in him a sense of responsibility for, and an acknowledgement of, that harm; providing for the interests of the victim; denouncing Mr Job’s actions; protecting the community from him; and assisting in his rehabilitation and reintegration. I take into account, in particular, the gravity of the offending and degree of Mr Job’s culpability, the desirability of consistency with sentences for similar offending; the effect of the offending on the victim; and I impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances.

What happened?

[3] Mr Job, you were in an “on and off” relationship with the victim for five or six years. You say it was an abusive relationship and has ended. The statement of facts on which you pleaded guilty records that, on 27 August 2017, you were drinking with a friend of yours at a motel in Manukau where your then-partner was staying. An argument started between you and your partner, the victim of this offending. She asked you and your friend to leave and the two of you went to the games room. Later she confronted you there but returned to her motel room. You banged on the front door, then entered through the back door. A knife was produced. The two of you struggled over it. You pushed her backwards onto her bed and forced the knife into the right side of the back of her head.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2).

[4] Your friend tried to restrain you. The victim kicked at you and ran to the carpark. You ran after her yelling “come here bitch” or words like that. You grappled with her on the ground, and would not be pulled off by your associate. A second knife was involved. That was not clear who initially carried that. You dragged her towards the car, put her in the backseat and climbed in on top of her. There was another struggle over the knife. She suffered cuts to her upper left arm,…

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 Job

Details

AGLC: R v Job [2018] NZHC 2543
Case: [2018] NZHC 2543
Decision Date: 28 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Neville Job, was sentenced by Palmer J in the High Court of New Zealand Auckland Registry. Job pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with reckless disregard for the safety of his then-partner in August 2017. The maximum penalty for this offence is seven years' imprisonment. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for Job, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing as set out in the Sentencing Act 2002. The court had to consider the gravity of the offending and degree of Job's culpability, the desirability of consistency with sentences for similar offending, the effect of the offending on the victim, and the least restrictive outcome that was appropriate in the circumstances.

Job and the victim had been in an on-and-off relationship for five or six years, which was characterized by mutual violence and excessive drinking. On the day of the offence, Job and the victim were drinking with a friend at a motel where the victim was staying. An argument ensued, and Job produced a knife and attacked the victim, causing serious injuries. The court considered the attack to be highly reckless, and the use of a weapon and attack to the head as aggravating factors. The court also took into account the family violence nature of the attack and the fact that Job continued to attack the victim after she had suffered a serious wound to her head. The court set a starting point of two years and ten months' imprisonment, taking into account comparable cases for this offence.

The court then considered adjustments to the starting point, including Job's personal history of substance abuse and his efforts to rehabilitate himself. The court made a discount of two months for the effect Job's incarceration would have on his children, and a discount of two months for the positive rehabilitative efforts he had made. The court also made a discount of six months for Job's early guilty plea. The court did not make any discount for remorse, as there was little expression of that. The court sentenced Job to imprisonment for two years for the offence of wounding with reckless disregard for the safety of another.

Orders