Legal Research
Cases
R v Marson-Wood

R v Marson-Wood

Case [2018] NZHC 610 6 April 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-070-1870

[2018] NZHC 610

THE QUEEN

v

CORY MARSON-WOOD

Hearing: 6 April 2018

Appearances:

K A Lummis for Crown

P E Dacre QC for Defendant

Sentence:

6 April 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland Counsel: P E Dacre QC, Auckland

R v MARSON-WOOD [2018] NZHC 610 [6 April 2018]

[1] Mr Marson-Wood, you appear for sentence on five charges of arson and one of burglary, all of which you pleaded guilty to on 9 February 2018.1

Offending

[2] You committed all of the offences in the first week of May 2017. You were 19 at the time. Taking them in order, the first offence arises from 16 scrub fires you lit along a walking track in Piha. Most of these fires caused little damage, with the largest consuming an area of approximately 10 metres by 10 metres.

[3] The second offence was similar, in that you lit 12 fires in and around another Piha track. The largest consumed an area of approximately 30 metres by 30 metres. The fire service was required to come and extinguish this.

[4] Next, you lit a fire in a paper recycling bin that was near the Viaduct Events Centre, where you were working at the time. Again, the fire service had to be called. The rubbish bin was located next to the Centre and apparently immediately adjacent to gas cylinders used for cooking. More than 900 guests were attending a function at the time, as well as catering and security staff. This was serious offending because the proximity of the recycling bin to the cylinders, and to the Centre, raised the clear prospect of danger to life.

[5] The fourth charge arises from another fire you lit on a Piha walkway. This developed into a large forest fire, threatened homes and required at least one resident to evacuate. The fire service had to go to considerable effort to bring this fire under control, including using helicopters carrying monsoon buckets. This fire destroyed more than seven hectares of nature reserve and endangered life and property.

[6] The fifth charge arises from the fire you lit the same evening at Adey’s Place, the takeaway shop in Piha. You broke into the building or entered it, hence the burglary charge, and lit a fire. This fire largely destroyed the shop, and is said to have threatened neighbouring properties and their occupants. Shortly I shall refer to the

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 231 and 267.

statements I have from the owners of the shop and of the business as to the effect of your actions on them.

[7] The last three arson offences are the most serious because by pleading guilty to them you have admitted intentionally damaging property – the recycling bin, the land adjacent to the walkway and the takeaway shop – when you knew or ought to have known that…

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 Marson-Wood

Details

AGLC: R v Marson-Wood [2018] NZHC 610
Case: [2018] NZHC 610
Decision Date: 6 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Cory Marson-Wood was sentenced for five charges of arson and one of burglary, all of which he pleaded guilty to. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence considering the gravity of the offences, the personal circumstances of the defendant, and his guilty plea. The legal issues involved assessing the starting point for sentencing, adjusting it for personal circumstances, and reducing it due to the defendant's guilty plea. The court considered the seriousness of the arson offences, particularly the fire lit in a recycling bin near gas cylinders at an event with over 900 attendees, which posed a significant risk to life. Victim impact statements highlighted the extensive damage and emotional toll on the victims. The defendant's personal circumstances, including his youth, diagnosed mental health conditions, and lack of prior support, were also taken into account. The court concluded that the starting point for the offences was five years' imprisonment, adjusted downwards by 25% due to the defendant's age and mental health issues, and further reduced by 20% for his guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of three years' imprisonment.

The court sentenced Marson-Wood to three years' imprisonment on the charge of arson in the recycling bin, and 18 months' imprisonment on the other arson charges, to be served concurrently. On the burglary charge, he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, also to be served concurrently. Thus, the total effective sentence was three years' imprisonment.

Orders