R v Maney - [2023] NZHC 1239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2022-063-3836

[2023] NZHC 1239

THE KING

v

JASON REX THOMAS MANEY

Hearing: 24 May 2023

Appearances:

R Jenson and P F Lee (via AVL) for the Crown M Bott for the Defendant

Judgment:

24 May 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF HARVEY J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Tauranga Counsel: M Bott, Barrister, Wellington

R v MANEY [2023] NZHC 1239 [24 May 2023]

Introduction

[1] Jason Rex Thomas Maney, you appear for sentencing today having been found guilty last September 2022 by a jury of two charges: strangulation, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment;1 and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.2

[2] The Crown seeks a sentence of preventive detention. Alternatively, Mr Jenson submitted that if a finite sentence is imposed, then this should be at the upper end of the scale along with an uplift. If preventive detention is not imposed, counsel contended that the Court may also consider a further uplift for community protection.

[3] Your counsel, Mr Bott, argued that preventive detention is not appropriate. You will know that this is the second time in three years that a sentence of preventive detention has been sought.3 I will have to consider that submission, along with those of your counsel, as part of this sentencing decision.

[4] As you know Mr Maney, due to matters beyond our control in seeking the reports needed for your sentencing, there has been a long delay between the time you were found guilty, and today’s sentencing. While I make no criticism of the health experts who prepared your reports, this unfortunate delay is regretted. I am sorry you have had to wait so long.

[5]This sentence will be in four parts:

(a)First, I will cover the facts of your offending.

(b)Second, I will talk about your personal circumstances, including the risk factors identified by the health professionals who interviewed you.

(c)Third, I will fix your sentence.

(d)Finally, I will assess whether you should be subject to a sentence of preventive detention.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 189A(a).
2      Section 188(1).
3      R v Maney [2019] NZHC 2048.

The facts

[6] Mr Maney, as the trial judge, I had the benefit of hearing all of the evidence and the verdicts. In any case, the facts are reasonably clear.4 You and the complainant, who I refer to as K, had been in a relationship for approximately three years. The evidence confirms that there has been one previous attended family harm incident between you two.

[7] On Friday 6 November 2020, at an evening Guy Fawkes celebration at your home in Rotorua, you verbally abused K, referring to her in derogatory terms. Also present was K’s teenage son. Eventually, she left and returned to her home in Paengaroa, a drive of 40 minutes from Rotorua.

[8] After being rebuffed when text messaging K, several days later,…

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 Maney

Details

AGLC: R v Maney [2023] NZHC 1239
Case: [2023] NZHC 1239
Decision Date: 24 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Jason Rex Thomas Maney appeared for sentencing on charges of strangulation and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The Crown sought a sentence of preventive detention, while the defense argued against it. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the principles of sentencing, the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offenses, and whether preventive detention was warranted.

The court first assessed the facts of the case, which involved the defendant attacking his former partner, causing her unconsciousness and severe injuries. The court then analyzed the defendant's criminal history and personal circumstances, which included a troubled upbringing, a history of violent offending, and limited engagement with rehabilitation programs. The court considered psychiatric and psychological assessments, which indicated a high risk of reoffending and a potential diagnosis of psychopathy.

The court determined an overall starting point of nine years' imprisonment, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offenses. The court imposed an uplift of 12 months for the defendant's prior offending and a discount of 15% for his personal background, resulting in an end sentence of eight years and six months' imprisonment. The court declined to impose a sentence of preventive detention, finding that a lengthy determinate sentence combined with the possibility of an extended supervision order would provide adequate protection for the community. The court also imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of 60% of the sentence, which equates to five years.

The final orders of the court were that Jason Rex Thomas Maney be sentenced to eight years and six months' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years, for the charges of strangulation and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Orders