R v Laurent - [2022] NZHC 3154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2021-092-9340

[2022] NZHC 3154

THE KING

v

CHAUNTEL LAURENT

Hearing: 29 November 2022

Appearances:

S Arnerich for the Crown M Kan for the Defendant

Sentence:

29 November 2022

SENTENCE OF DUFFY J

Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau Michael Kan Law, Auckland

R v LAURENT [2022] NZHC 3154 [29 November 2022]

[1] Chauntel Laurent, you come up for sentencing today having pleaded guilty to accessory after the fact to the offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1

[2] In my sentencing indication of 30 September 2022, I indicated a starting point of 10 months’ imprisonment.2 The reasons for doing so are set out in the indication, which will be attached to, and form part of the sentencing notes. I also indicated that would be reduced by 25 per cent if you pleaded guilty. There was to be no uplift for any personal aggravating factors.

[3] The matters left to be considered today are whether you should receive any further discounts for personal factors, what credit should be given for time spent on electronically monitored bail (EM bail) and ultimately what sentence should be imposed on you.

[4]First, I will briefly set out the facts of your offending.

Facts

[5] At the time of the offending you were in a relationship with one of the principal offenders. He is a member of the 23 Blue Cartel faction of the Crips gang.

[6] On 15 August 2021, another person who was selling methamphetamine on behalf of the Blue Cartel, was robbed by two other persons. Members of the Blue Cartel conspired to seek retribution. It is not suggested you took part in the conspiracy; this is simply in the summary of facts.

[7] On 22 August 2021 those persons made various preparatory steps such as obtaining firearms and a vehicle. They obtained a vehicle which was driven to one of the member’s addresses at 2.52 pm. At 4 pm, you drove that vehicle from the address with one man whom you knew and an unknown man as passengers. You did not know what the men were doing, only that they had to do something for someone. You thought they were going to pick up money or something.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 71, 188(2) and 312. Maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
2 R v Laurent [2022] NZHC 2502.

[8] About an hour later, you and the men arrived at the victim’s address. You parked the car near the front entrance. The victim lived there with one of the men whom the people you associated with believed had robbed one of their group.

[9] The unknown man got out of the car and handed the man you knew a firearm. You told police this was the first time you had seen the firearm. The man began banging on the doors. The victim came to the door. There was an exchange between…

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 Laurent

Details

AGLC: R v Laurent [2022] NZHC 3154
Case: [2022] NZHC 3154
Decision Date: 29 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Chauntel Laurent was sentenced for her role as an accessory after the fact to the offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for Laurent, considering her limited involvement in the offence, her guilty plea, and the time she had already spent in custody. The court determined that a starting point of 10 months' imprisonment was appropriate, reduced by 25% due to her guilty plea. The court considered personal factors, time spent on electronically monitored bail, and credit for time spent in pre-sentence detention. Ultimately, the court decided to sentence Laurent to seven months' imprisonment, acknowledging that the time already spent in custody would effectively be the sentence served. The court also imposed special release conditions to assist with her rehabilitation.

Orders