R v Jury - [2014] NZHC 687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2013-041-0067 [2014] NZHC 687

THE QUEEN

v

JOSEPH TE RONGOPAI JURY

Hearing: 4 April 2014

Appearances:

C R Walker for the Crown
R Fairbrother QC for the prisoner

Sentence:

4 April 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF CLIFFORD J

[1] Mr Jury, you appear for sentence having been found guilty by a jury of wounding Hemi Tiwai Greening with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm. The maximum penalty for that crime is 14 years’ imprisonment.

Facts

[2] At your trial you faced two charges, attempted murder and, in the alternative, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The jury found you not guilty on the first charge, but guilty on the second. Based on the evidence given at your trial and the jury’s verdicts, I find the facts on which you are to be sentenced to be as follows.

[3] At the time of your offending your relationship with your partner, Naomi Le

Geyt, which she described as having lasted for more than five albeit a bit on and off,

R v JURY [2014] NZHC 687 [4 April 2014]

had come to an end. You had one child together. It had not been your idea to end that relationship and it is clear you were having difficulty accepting the fact that it had ended.

[4] You went to Morris Spence Avenue on the evening of Saturday 15 December

2012. I accept, as the Crown contended at the trial, that you looked for Ms Le Geyt earlier that evening and that when you did not find her you slashed her clothes with a knife.

[5] Ms Le Geyt returned home in the early hours of Sunday morning with Mr Greening. They went to bed. You returned to the house about 5.00 am in the morning. You went into the bedroom and found Ms Le Geyt in bed with Mr Greening. While Mr Greening was asleep you stabbed him in the left abdomen, just below the edge of the ribs. That caused him to wake up. You then stabbed him again in the abdomen, at which point Mr Greening began defending himself.

[6] During the subsequent struggle you wounded him with the knife twice on the left leg and twice on the upper left arm, including one blow which pierced his bicep. You then wounded him twice on the upper back and you nicked his left ear.

[7] The medical evidence was the first stab wound was at least two centimetres deep, as it had pierced the abdominal wall. The second did not pierce the abdominal wall completely. The wounds to Mr Greening’s upper thigh were a couple of centimetres deep. The remaining wounds, other than the stab which pierced the bicep, were described as superficial.

[8] I think it was a brother of yours who happened to be staying at the house that evening. He heard the noise of your struggle with Mr Greening and intervened. You and he left together.

[9]…

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 Jury

Details

AGLC: R v Jury [2014] NZHC 687
Case: [2014] NZHC 687
Decision Date: 4 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jury is a sentencing decision of the High Court of New Zealand. Joseph Te Rongopai Jury was found guilty of wounding Hemi Tiwai Greening with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for this offence, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. The primary legal issue was to identify the appropriate starting point for the sentence, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case.

The court identified several aggravating factors, including the premeditated nature of the crime, the use of a lethal weapon, the seriousness of the injury inflicted, and the vulnerability of the victim. The court also considered the argument that the crime amounted to a home invasion, which would warrant a sentence at the top of the third band. However, the court decided that the offence, while involving a home invasion, was not at the top end of the third band due to the victim not being the defendant's partner.

The court also considered mitigating factors, such as the defendant's young age, his generally law-abiding life despite a difficult upbringing, and his efforts to distance himself from his previous environment. The court decided to give a credit of one year for these factors. Additionally, the court found that the defendant's early willingness to plead guilty should be recognised with a 25% discount, reducing the sentence by two and a half years.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Joseph Te Rongopai Jury to seven years and six months' imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence while taking into account the mitigating factors and the defendant's guilty plea.

Orders