R v King - [2012] NZHC 3072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

CRI 2009-009-17816 [2012] NZHC 3072

THE QUEEN

v

KEVIN ROBERT KING

Hearing: 19 November 2012

Counsel: M A O'Donoghue for Crown
S L Baigent with K F Preston and B J Millar for Accused

Sentence: 19 November 2012

REVISED SENTENCING NOTES OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

[1] Mr King, you appear for sentence following conviction for manslaughter. You pleaded guilty to that charge during the course of retrial. The nature of the manslaughter here was the omission of a lawful duty to use reasonable care when doing a lawful act.[1]

Details of offending

[1] Crimes Act 1961, ss 155, 160(2)(b), s 177.

[2] Three years ago you were the part-owner of Shapeshifters, a Blenheim bar. You also worked there as a bouncer. In the early hours of 23 August 2009 the deceased, Mr Matthew Heagney, a young man aged 24 years, arrived at your bar. He
went there to meet his girlfriend. After a short while, just 20 minutes, he left the bar.

R v KING HC BLE CRI 2009-009-17816 [19 November 2012]

It seems reasonably clear that Mr Heagney had had some sort of disagreement with his girlfriend, either at your bar or more probably earlier, and was in a state of upset. Within just three minutes he thought better of leaving. He tried to re-enter. That was at 2.43 am. But lock-out at your bar was 2.30 am. The doors were closed and he was refused entry. Somehow he managed to slip past door staff and regained entry.

[3] This time he stayed only about five minutes. He decided to again leave. As he came down the stairs into the foyer he could not open the left hand door. Would for everyone’s sake that he had been able to do so. None of us would be here now.

[4] Mr Wright-Munro was the doorman that Mr Heagney had slipped past. As Mr Heagney tried to exit, Mr Wright-Munro recognised him. He tapped Mr Heagney on the shoulder. He simply intended to trespass him. Mr Heagney reacted and took hold of Mr Wright-Munro. The latter thought he was about to be punched, although no punch was thrown. Confrontation turned into physical altercation. You witnessed that. Knowing Mr Wright-Munro was young and inexperienced, you intervened.

[5] You approached Mr Heagney from behind. He was facing Mr Wright-Munro, who had his back to the wall. You put your arm around Mr Heagney’s neck pulling him away. There was a brief struggle. You restrained Mr Heagney with what is called a “sleeper hold”. Another bouncer, Ms Zuidema, arrived to assist. The evidence of witnesses vary as to whether Mr Heagney was or was not continuing to struggle. Ms Zuidema’s evidence, in my view, was more reliable than Mr Wright-
Munro’s.[2] Her evidence was that Mr Heagney had ceased to struggle. His face was

pale, he looked dazed and as if he was having difficulty breathing. Together you, Mr Wright-Munro and Ms Zuidema lifted…

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 King

Details

AGLC: R v King [2012] NZHC 3072
Case: [2012] NZHC 3072
Decision Date: 19 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Blenheim Registry, the case of The Queen v Kevin Robert King revolved around the sentencing of the defendant, Kevin Robert King, who had been convicted of manslaughter. The manslaughter charge stemmed from an incident at a bar where King, acting as a bouncer, used a potentially dangerous hold on a patron, Matthew Heagney, leading to Heagney's death after being dropped outside the bar. King pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter by omission to use reasonable care when doing a lawful act.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for King, considering the gravity of the offence, the degree of culpability, and the impact of the offence on the victim and his family. The court needed to balance the purposes of sentencing, including holding King accountable, promoting a sense of responsibility, denouncing the conduct, deterring future offences, and assisting in King's rehabilitation. The court also had to assess the starting point for sentencing and any aggravating or mitigating factors.

The court's reasoning involved acknowledging the tragic nature of the incident and the significant impact on Heagney's family. It accepted that King's actions, though not intended to cause harm, were dangerous and negligent. The court set a starting point of two years' imprisonment, reduced by 25% for King's guilty plea on the amended indictment, resulting in a sentence of fourteen months' imprisonment. Further reductions for good character and remorse brought the sentence down to twelve months. Given King's low risk of reoffending and the purposes of sentencing, the court opted for a sentence of home detention, the maximum term permissible by law, minus the 39 days King had already served.

The final orders of the court mandated that Kevin Robert King serve a sentence of home detention for twelve months, minus the 39 days already served, and corrected the record to state that the "Three Strikes" warning requirement under the legislation did not apply in his case.

Orders