R v M - [2024] NZHC 576

INTERIM ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS OF DEFENDANT SEE MINUTE OF 1 DECEMBER 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2023-296-031

[2024] NZHC 576

THE KING

v

M

Hearing: 15 March 2024

Appearances:

S A H Bishop for the Crown

L M Sziranyi for the Defendant

Sentencing notes:

18 March 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF GRICE J

Introduction

[1] [Redacted], you are aged 16, turning 17 in just a few weeks. On 4 April 2023 you were convicted of the attempted murder1 of [victim] in the Youth Court following a Judge-alone trial in that Court.2 You are now to be sentenced in this Court.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 173. The maximum sentence is 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Police v MM [2022] NZYC 209.

R v M [2024] NZHC 576 [18 March 2024]

The offending

[2] Sentencing in this court is a public exercise so I explain the details of the offending that has led up to this and also to the principles and the basis of my final sentencing.

[3] [Redacted], in May of 2022, you had just turned 15. Your relationship of 18 months had ended. The victim also aged 15 at the time, until then had been a friend of yours. He had started up a relationship with your former girlfriend. He had spoken to you about this, however, you were unhappy and you set out to kill him. You made Google searches for information on matters which later featured in your offending.

[4] You told a friend that you wanted to hurt the victim at school the next day and you arrived at school with a knife. Your older brother discovered the knife, and you were sent home from school.

[5] Shortly after you tried to arrange a fight with the victim using a friend’s messaging profile. The victim said he would not enter the fight and you messaged him through your friend’s account saying that you would go to his house with a weapon.

[6] That night you did go to the victim’s address. You took a machete and wore clothing that was apparently intended to disguise your identity. You called out to the victim, who was confronted by you when he was leaving. You swung the machete at the victim several times, causing the following injuries:

(a)A 10 cm cut to his chest that splintered off a five cm shard of rib and injured his left costal artery in two locations and punctured his lung.

(b)A 20 cm cut to his right forearm, exposing and injuring several muscles and tendons in his forearm.

(c)Three minor cuts to his forehead.

[7] The attack ended when the victim’s parents intervened and his father confiscated the machete and you ran.

[8] The victim required emergency surgery to his torso and plastic surgery to his arm.

[9] You were arrested on 16 May 2022 in Palmerston North and charged with wounding with intent to…

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 M

Details

AGLC: R v M [2024] NZHC 576
Case: [2024] NZHC 576
Decision Date: 18 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v M involved the sentencing of M, a 16-year-old who was convicted of the attempted murder of a 15-year-old victim. The attack, which took place in May 2022, resulted in severe injuries to the victim, including a punctured lung, injuries to essential organs, and multiple cuts requiring emergency surgery. M had meticulously planned the attack, using a machete and wearing disguises to conceal his identity. Following his conviction in the Youth Court, M was sentenced in the High Court. The Crown argued for a starting point of nine to ten years’ imprisonment, citing the premeditation, the severity of the victim's injuries, and the use of a weapon as significant aggravating factors. Conversely, the defence advocated for a sentence of home detention or community detention, highlighting M's youth, remorse, and rehabilitation efforts.

The High Court determined that M's offending, while serious, warranted a starting point of seven years’ imprisonment, acknowledging the premeditation, severity of injuries, and use of a weapon as aggravating factors but noting that the offending was less severe than the Crown's comparator cases. The Court applied a 30% discount for M's youth and rehabilitative prospects, as well as an eight-month reduction for time spent on electronically monitored bail and in a youth justice residence. Consequently, the Court imposed a sentence of 12 months’ home detention, considering it the most appropriate outcome given M's age, the risk of adverse effects from imprisonment, and the potential for rehabilitation within the community. The Court emphasized the importance of ongoing support and therapy to assist M in addressing his offending-related factors.

The final orders included a sentence of 12 months’ home detention with specific conditions such as non-association with the victim and former girlfriend, and prohibitions on drugs and alcohol. The interim name suppression order remained in effect until the application for final name suppression was heard. This decision reflects the Court's focus on balancing accountability and denunciation with the principles of youth justice and rehabilitation.

Orders