R v M

Case [2014] NZHC 1848 7 August 2014

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PERMANENTLY PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT (M) AND
CO-DEFENDANT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CRI-2013-090-005262 [2014] NZHC 1848

THE QUEEN
v
M

Hearing: 7 August 2014

Appearances:

K Raftery for Crown
J D Munro for M

Judgment:

7 August 2014

SENTENCE OF WINKELMANN J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland

R v M [2014] NZHC 1848 [7 August 2014]

[1] [M], you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to assaulting Stephen Dudley with intent to injure him. Although the maximum penalty for that offence is three years’ imprisonment, I will not be sentencing you to either imprisonment or home detention. The issue for me today is whether I sentence you to a non-custodial sentence, or discharge you without conviction. I have decided to discharge you without conviction. Now I have told you that, I want you to listen carefully to what I now have to say about how I have arrived at that decision because it has some important messages for you.

Summary of facts

[2] First, the detail of the offending for which you are sentenced. Your younger brother and the victim, Stephen Dudley, were members of the same rugby team at an Auckland secondary school. At the time of the offending they were friends and were both 15 years of age. You were also a student of that school, but you were two years older. At the time of the offending you were 17.

[3] On the day of the assault, the rugby team had come together for a pre-season practice. Before training your brother and Stephen had an argument and almost came to blows, but they were stopped by other teammates.

[4] After practice, Stephen was leaving the ground when someone from the team called him back. Your brother met Stephen at the centre of the field. There seems to have been peer pressure for a fight, with people calling out for a fight and using their cellphones to record events.

[5] You arrived at the playing fields to pick your brother up at that moment. You saw the brewing fight. You ran to the centre of the field and involved yourself in events.

[6] You approached Stephen from the side and struck him once on the neck with a swinging right arm. Stephen did not see this blow coming and hunched over defensively. He did not throw a punch. You and your brother then delivered several punches to Stephen’s torso. Stephen collapsed and at that point you and your brother

left the scene. Attempts were made to revive Stephen but he later died in hospital. Unbeknownst to you or to anyone at the time, Stephen had an undiagnosed heart condition which made him vulnerable to problems with his heart’s rhythm in situations of traumatic stress. Because of that condition, it is impossible for anyone to say what actually caused Stephen’s death. However, we can at least say that if the fight had not taken place, Stephen might be…

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 [2014] NZHC 1848
Case: [2014] NZHC 1848
Decision Date: 7 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v M was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. M was convicted of assaulting Stephen Dudley with intent to injure, although it was not established whether this assault caused Stephen's death due to an undiagnosed heart condition. The court had to decide whether M should be discharged without conviction or receive a non-custodial sentence. The key issues were the gravity of the offence, M's culpability, the impact of a conviction on M, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court found that while M's actions were worthy of condemnation and were at the lower to moderate range of seriousness for an assault of this type, his youth and lack of a prior criminal record were significant mitigating factors. M's actions were impulsive and protective, driven by concern for his younger brother who was involved in a fight. The court acknowledged that M's involvement in the fight was reactive and not premeditated. Given M's age, remorse, and low risk of reoffending, the court concluded that a custodial sentence was inappropriate. The court also considered the significant consequences M had already faced, including social isolation and the inability to complete secondary school. The court determined that the negative impact of a conviction on M's future prospects outweighed the gravity of the offence, leading to the decision to discharge M without conviction.

The court emphasised that its decision should not be seen as an endorsement of violence among school children, but rather a recognition of the unique circumstances of this case and the potential disproportionate impact of a conviction on a young person. The court highlighted the need for education on the risks of violence, especially in light of the prevalence of violent content in media and popular culture.

Orders