R v Lawson - [2023] NZHC 2521

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2022-085-000938

[2023] NZHC 2521

THE KING

v

MANA LAWSON

Hearing: 8 September 2023

Counsel:

W J Tupua for Crown M Bott for Defendant

Sentence:

8 September 2023

SENTENCE OF ELLIS J

[1] Mr Lawson I am sentencing you today on one charge of unlawful possession of a firearm and one representative charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1 I’ll come back to the things you did that resulted in those charges in a moment.

[2] Earlier this year I gave you an indication of the sentence that would be imposed. I said the starting point would be nine years’ imprisonment but that you would get a 25 per cent discount off that if you pleaded guilty, which you then did. I also said that you could get a further discount of between 20 and 25 per cent as a result of matters discussed in a report prepared for you by Dr Jarrod Gilbert, but that Mr Bott

1 The maximum sentence for the firearm charge is four years imprisonment. The maximum sentence for the wounding charge is 14 years imprisonment.

R v LAWSON [2023] NZHC 2521 [8 September 2023]

was also hoping to get further information about a possible Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder diagnosis and how that might have contributed to you being here today. I’ll come back to those things at the end.

[3] I need to talk first about what happened on 23 April 2022. Although I talked about them in my sentence indication it is important to repeat some of what I said again today.

[4] So on that day, 23 April 2022 you and some other people—including Mel Petersen—were in the Wellington CBD in the early morning. You had been drinking in a number of bars for some hours before. Some of the people you were with were associates or patched members of the Mongrel Mob and I think the Killer Beez.

[5] The three victims had also been drinking in town that night, in the company of others, some of whom were associates or patched members of a rival gang. They were celebrating the 21st birthday of one of the victims, Mr Dekiah Poe.

[6]At some point your group became aware that the other group were around.

[7] At about 5am your group drove in a convoy and parked on Inglewood Place, Te Aro. You walked from there to Dixon Street. Mr Petersen had a 12-gauge shotgun hidden in his left trouser leg.

[8] Your group approached the victims’ group, who were standing on the footpath outside Calendar Girls. When one person in your group approached the other group he was punched in the face. Your group retreated towards Inglewood Place.

[9] Mr Petersen then took the shotgun out of his trousers and gave it to you, Mr Lawson. You fired the gun from your hip in the direction of the other group as…

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 Lawson

Details

AGLC: R v Lawson [2023] NZHC 2521
Case: [2023] NZHC 2521
Decision Date: 8 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, delivered judgment in the case of R v Lawson, where Mana Lawson was sentenced for unlawful possession of a firearm and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence considering the circumstances of the crime and the mitigating factors presented by Lawson's defense. The legal issues included the assessment of the severity of the crime, the impact of Lawson's guilty plea, and the influence of his diagnosed Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) and other personal circumstances on his culpability.

The court, in its sentencing, noted the gravity of the injuries inflicted on the victims, which included severe head injuries, a ruptured eye, and multiple fractures, underscoring the potential lethality of Lawson's actions. The court acknowledged the traumatic background of Lawson, including physical and emotional abuse in his childhood, and his diagnosed FASD, which affects his ability to understand consequences and control impulsive behavior. Despite these mitigating factors, the court emphasized the necessity for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense. The court balanced the discounts for Lawson's guilty plea and his personal difficulties against the need to denounce the offense, resulting in a sentence of four years imprisonment for the wounding charge, to be served concurrently with a one-year sentence for the firearms charge.

In summary, the court imposed a final sentence of four years imprisonment on Lawson, taking into account his guilty plea, his personal circumstances, and the severity of the harm caused to the victims. The court also convicted and discharged Lawson on a charge of breaching his home detention conditions, agreeing with the defense's argument that a conviction and discharge was more appropriate given Lawson's FASD.

Orders