R v Lawson - [2020] NZHC 1813

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2018-225-000004

[2020] NZHC 1813

THE QUEEN

v

DAVID DEAN LAWSON

Hearing: 24 July 2020

Counsel:

S N McKenzie and W Chapman for the Crown S Vidal for the Defendant

Judgment:

24 July 2020

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J

[1] I will just begin by thanking [the victim’s mother] for coming to Court again, reading that victim impact report.
[2] Mr Lawson, I hope you heard what she was saying and that you understand what she was saying about Phillip O’Brien, the victim. He was not actually a member of Mangu Kaha. He was just a young man. He wasn’t very well equipped to deal with a whole gang environment and, as a result of the attack on him, he was nearly killed and his life has been changed forever. So has the life of his family. That is because of the way he found himself involved in a gang situation. Part of the reason why he suffered is because you, as one of the Mongrel Mob, assisted in that attack on him. So, you need to think about that and think about where your involvement with your Mongrel Mob brothers has got you, not just for you but also for the people who have become affected by your offending.

R v LAWSON [2020] NZHC 1813 [24 July 2020]

[3]        You pleaded guilty to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, unlawful possession of a firearm, possession of an offensive weapon and unlawfully being in an enclosed yard. You are now before the Court for sentencing.
[4]        Your offending was related to the way a group of Mongrel Mob members attacked a young man in South Invercargill on 16 February 2018.
[5]        You originally faced more serious charges but pleaded guilty to the ones I have just mentioned on 17 December 2019. There has been quite a delay until this sentencing hearing. This has been at your counsel’s request so the defence could obtain a report from a psychologist, Mr Prince, to assist you with your sentencing.

Factual background

[6]I need to go through the factual background.

[7] At approximately 5.15 pm on 16 February 2018, the victim and three other young people were walking together on a street in South Invercargill. It was a residential area. Just ordinary members of the public live nearby. The victim, a 23 year old man, was wearing a Mangu Kaha t-shirt.

[8] Three vehicles occupied by approximately 10 Mongrel Mob members or associates intercepted the group. One vehicle parked directly next to the victim. The front passenger was seen to point a firearm out of the window at the victim and pull the trigger twice, but the firearm failed to fire.

[9] The occupants got out of their vehicles and several approached the victim. A witness reported a second person as carrying a firearm and presenting it at the witness. Indications were that two firearms were…

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 [2020] NZHC 1813
Case: [2020] NZHC 1813
Decision Date: 24 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Dean Lawson was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, unlawful possession of a firearm, possession of an offensive weapon, and unlawfully being in an enclosed yard. The case involved a gang-related attack on a young man, Phillip O’Brien, who was nearly killed in the incident. The Crown recommended a starting point of 10 years' imprisonment, while the defence argued for a starting point of 8 years. The judge rejected the defence submission, stating that the accused had played a significant role in facilitating the attack and had assisted in the attempted disposal of a firearm involved in the attack. The judge adopted a starting point of 10 years' imprisonment and imposed an uplift of two years for the accused's possession of a loaded firearm and other weapons two days after the attack. The accused's guilty plea resulted in a 20% discount on the starting point sentence. The judge also imposed an uplift of 12 months due to the accused's previous convictions and his involvement in the attack while subject to release conditions. The judge allowed a discount of 8% for mitigating factors, resulting in an end sentence of a little over nine and a half years' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years.

Orders