R v Lake - [2020] NZHC 3013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-044-001741

[2020] NZHC 3013

THE QUEEN

v

NIGEL JOHN LAKE

Hearing: 10 and 13 November 2020

Appearances:

K A Lummis for the Crown

J D Munro and A N Gruebner for the Defendant

Judgment:

13 November 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF POWELL J

R v LAKE [2020] NZHC 3013 [13 November 2020]

[1] Nigel Lake, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a single charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1

Approach to sentencing

[2] I begin my task today by explaining what I have to do and how I am approaching it. The Sentencing Act 2002 sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing. The primary purposes of sentencing in this case are to hold you accountable for the harm that you have done;2 to promote in you a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgement of, that harm;3 to denounce your conduct;4 to deter you and others from engaging in such conduct;5 and as you have heard today of particular importance in this case, is to protect the community.6

[3] In this case, the principles of sentencing that are particularly relevant are: the need to take into account the gravity of your offending, including the degree to which you are responsible;7 the seriousness of the offending;8 the impact of the offending and the impact of your offending on the victim, Mr Waihape.9 It is also necessary to consider consistency with appropriate sentencing levels in other cases.10 I note this Court is required to impose the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances.11

[4] Determining an appropriate sentence for you involves two steps.12 First, I must work out a finite sentence, in other words a specified number of years in prison, and then I have to decide whether that sentence is appropriate or whether I should impose a sentence of preventive detention, in which case you would be subject to a minimum

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 7(1)(a).
3      Section 7(1)(b).
4      Section 7(1)(e).
5      Section 7(1)(f).
6      Section 7(1)(g).
7      Section 8(a).
8      Section 8(b).
9      Section 8(f).
10     Section 8(e).
11     Section 8(g).
12     Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296.

period of imprisonment and only thereafter released at the discretion of the Parole Board, when it determines that you are no longer a threat to the safety of the community.

[5] In determining the appropriate finite sentence, I begin by calculating what is referred to as the “starting point”, a term that you have heard this morning. The starting point is a term of imprisonment that reflects the seriousness of the offending to which you have pleaded guilty. Once I have calculated the starting point, I must then take into account your personal circumstances that are relevant, both positive and negative, including any deduction that you are entitled to for your guilty plea. This…

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 Lake

Details

AGLC: R v Lake [2020] NZHC 3013
Case: [2020] NZHC 3013
Decision Date: 13 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Auckland Registry, the case of The Queen v Nigel John Lake, CRI-2019-044-001741 [2020] NZHC 3013, was heard on 10 and 13 November 2020. Nigel Lake pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm under the Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1). The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the purposes and principles of sentencing outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The key legal issues included setting an appropriate starting point for the sentence and deciding whether preventive detention was necessary to protect the community.

The court began by calculating the starting point, considering the seriousness of the offending, which involved multiple blows to the victim's head while he was unconscious, causing significant injuries. The court found the starting point to be eight years' imprisonment, reflecting the high degree of violence and the vulnerability of the victim. The court then evaluated personal factors, both aggravating and mitigating, and decided on a net deduction of 25% from the starting point, resulting in a finite sentence of six years' imprisonment. However, the court concluded that a finite sentence would not adequately protect the community, given the defendant's history of serious violent offending and the lack of effective rehabilitation. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence of preventive detention with a minimum term of imprisonment set at six years.

In summary, the court sentenced Nigel Lake to preventive detention for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, with a minimum term of imprisonment of six years. The decision was based on the need to protect the community from the defendant's high risk of committing further serious violent offences.

Orders