Legal Research
Cases
R v Lloyd

R v Lloyd

Case [2022] NZHC 1044 12 May 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2018-029-1149

[2022] NZHC 1044

THE QUEEN

v

HETA LENNOD LLOYD

Defendant

Hearing: 12 May 2022

Appearances:

MB Smith for the Crown

S Thode and WT Main for the Defendant

Sentenced:

12 May 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF FITZGERALD J

Solicitors: Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Whangarei Thode Utting & Co, Albany

R v LLOYD [2022] NZHC 1044 [12 May 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Lloyd, you appear for sentencing today having been found guilty by a jury of the following charges, all of which arise out of events which occurred on 25 July 2018:

(a)two charges of using a firearm against a law enforcement officer;1

(b)one charge of unlawful possession of a firearm;2

(c)one charge of unlawful possession of explosives (being ammunition);3

(d)one charge of unlawful possession of an offensive weapon;4

(e)one charge of driving while disqualified (third or subsequent);5

(f)one charge of driving dangerously;6

(g)one charge of failing to stop when followed by red and blue flashing lights (second offence);7

(h)one charge of possessing a methamphetamine utensil;8 and

(i)two charges of possessing a Class C controlled drug.9

[2] You are also to be sentenced on charges arising out of offending on 18 August 2018, to which you pleaded guilty in March last year. They are one charge of assault

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 198A(1). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b). Maximum penalty 4 years’ imprisonment and/or $5,000 fine.
3      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1). Maximum penalty 4 years’ imprisonment and/or $5,000 fine.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(a). Maximum penalty 3 years’ imprisonment.
5      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a) and (4). Maximum penalty 2 years’ imprisonment or $6,000 fine; minimum 1 year’s disqualification.
6      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b) and (2). Maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment or
$4,500 fine; minimum 6 months’ disqualification.
7      Land Transport Act 1998, s 52A(1)(a)(ii), (4) and (6). Maximum penalty $10,000 fine and 1 year’s disqualification.
8      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and (3). Maximum penalty 1 year’s imprisonment and/or
$500 fine.
9      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and 2(b). Maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment and/or
$500 fine.

with a weapon which was ramming a police car with your car,10 one charge of resisting arrest,11 and one charge of possession of methamphetamine.12

[3] As I am sure Mrs Thode has explained to you, the charges of using a firearm against a law enforcement officer are third strike offences. Because of that, and as the law currently stands, the Sentencing Act requires me to sentence you to the maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment13 – unless I am satisfied that that sentence would be so disproportionately severe as to breach s 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.14 To explain, s 9 of the Bill of Rights Act provides that everyone has the right not to be subject to “disproportionately severe” punishment.

[4] If I conclude…

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 Lloyd

Details

AGLC: R v Lloyd [2022] NZHC 1044
Case: [2022] NZHC 1044
Decision Date: 12 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Heta Lennod Lloyd was sentenced for a series of serious charges that arose from two separate incidents occurring on 25 July 2018 and 18 August 2018. Lloyd was found guilty of multiple charges, including using a firearm against law enforcement officers, unlawful possession of a firearm and explosives, and dangerous driving. The court was required to decide whether sentencing Lloyd to the maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment under the three strikes regime would breach section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The court considered the nature and seriousness of Lloyd’s offending, his extensive criminal history, and his prospects for rehabilitation. After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that sentencing Lloyd to 14 years’ imprisonment would breach section 9 of the Bill of Rights Act, as it would be disproportionately severe. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence of five years and one month’s imprisonment, with a minimum period of two years, in accordance with normal sentencing principles. Lloyd was also disqualified from driving for three and a half years, to take effect from his release from custody.

Orders