R v Manuel - [2021] NZHC 250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-004-004405

[2021] NZHC 250

THE QUEEN

v

SHAYNEE MANUEL

Hearing: 23 February 2020

Appearances:

Jacob Barry for the Crown

Hannah Cheeseman for the Defendant

Judgment:

23 February 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MOORE J

R v MANUEL [2021] NZHC 250 [23 February 2021]

Introduction

[1] Shaynee Manuel, at the age of 24, you appear before me to be sentenced on one charge of aggravated burglary.1 On 1 December 2020 I gave you a sentence indication. I indicated that if you were to plead guilty, I would set the starting point at seven years’ imprisonment. I said that discounts would likely be available for your youth, addiction, cultural background and rehabilitative potential. I said at that time that the extent of those discounts would depend on the sentencing material which was placed before me, but I confirmed there would be a reduction on account of your guilty plea of 25 per cent. I also said that the sentence would be reduced to take account of totality which was something I could not fix before knowing what the end sentence would otherwise be. Finally, I noted that a conviction would mean you would be given a second strike warning.2 I said the indication would remain open for 10 working days.

[2] At callover the next day you accepted the indication. Before Fitzgerald J you entered a plea of guilty and a conviction was entered. The Judge gave you a second strike warning and remanded you to today for sentence. It was signalled at that time that the s 27 report, which was already on the file, would be relied on and that a psychological report had been directed by the Parole Board earlier in the year and was also likely to assume relevance at the sentencing. Through your lawyer, Ms Cheeseman, you advised that you wished to engage in a restorative justice conference.

Facts

[3] The facts will be well known to you. I set them out when I gave you the sentencing indication. However, unless the Court gives permission to publish the contents of a sentencing indication, they are automatically suppressed. Furthermore, because sentencing is quintessentially a public function and must be conducted in open Court and may be reported, it is necessary for me in this forum to repeat the facts. And they are these.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 232(1)(b). Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 After the conclusion of my sentencing remarks Ms Cheeseman advised me that the offending here predates that for which Ms Manuel received her initial first strike warning. As such, this is in fact Ms Manuel’s second first strike warning.

[4] On 23 August 2019, you and your two co-defendants, Ms N3 and an unknown male (who for convenience I shall call X) entered the complainants’ Onehunga home in the early hours of the morning. Inside that house there were five people asleep in their beds; two…

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 Manuel

Details

AGLC: R v Manuel [2021] NZHC 250
Case: [2021] NZHC 250
Decision Date: 23 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Manuel, Shaynee Manuel, a 24-year-old woman, was sentenced by Moore J for her involvement in an aggravated burglary. Manuel, along with two co-defendants, had entered a house in Onehunga in the early hours of the morning, assaulting and robbing the five occupants who were asleep. Manuel's role in the crime involved limited participation in the actual violence but was nonetheless significant in the overall offending. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence, adjusting that starting point based on mitigating and aggravating factors, and finally, ensuring that the overall sentence was not unduly harsh given Manuel's existing sentence for another offence.

Moore J began by setting the starting point for the sentence at seven years' imprisonment, considering the serious nature of the crime, the number of participants, and the impact on the victims. Various discounts were then applied, including a 25% discount for Manuel's guilty plea, a 15% discount for her cultural background, social factors, and addiction, a 10% discount for her demonstrated remorse, another 10% for her rehabilitation prospects, and a final 10% for her youth. After these adjustments, the sentence was further reduced by 12 months to account for totality, resulting in a final sentence of 15 months' imprisonment, to be added to the sentence Manuel was already serving.

Moore J concluded that the sentence, while serious, was lenient given the nature of the offence. The judge encouraged Manuel to take this opportunity to turn her life around, emphasizing the hope and support extended to her by various parties, including the Parole Board, who would consider her rehabilitation prospects upon her release.

Orders