R v Maxwell HC New Plymouth CRI-2009-021-001570

[2010] NZHC 2422

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2009-021-001570

THE QUEEN

v

REECE WILLIAM MAXWELL SHANE RANIERA WHALE WHETU MARAMA CAMERON RHYS WAAKA WILSON

DEAN O'BRIEN SANSON JACKY PHILLIPS

Hearing:         6 December 2010

Counsel:         S T Ellis for the Crown

C P Brosnahan for Maxwell
A R Laurenson for Whale
P J Mooney for Cameron
J C Hannam for Wilson
P M Keegan and A Dallison for Sanson
K R Pascoe for Phillips

Judgment:      6 December 2010

SENTENCES OF POTTER J

R V MAXWELL AND ORS HC NWP CRI-2009-021-001570  6 December 2010

Introduction

[1]      Six men are before the Court today for sentencing on convictions which arise out of their parts in an incident which took place on 10 October 2009 at 110 Celia Street,  Stratford.    Eight  people  were  charged  with  offences  in  relation  to  this incident.    Two,  Rawiri  Goss  and  Chris  Sanson,  pleaded  guilty  to  charges  of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and injuring with intent to injure and have been sentenced.

[2]      The remaining six offenders who are to be sentenced today, fall into three categories for sentencing purposes:

a)       Reece Maxwell and Shane Whale entered guilty pleas during trial to charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (the maximum term of imprisonment is fourteen years) and injuring with intent to injure (the maximum term of imprisonment is five years). They are the principal offenders and are to be sentenced on that basis. I do not accept Mr Laurenson’s submission that Shane Whale should be treated at the same level of culpability as Mr Goss.

b)Rhys Wilson entered a guilty plea to both charges during trial.  It is accepted that he is to be sentenced on the basis that he is a secondary party to the offending.

c)       Whetu Cameron, Jacky Phillips and Dean Sanson were found guilty by the jury of the charge of injuring with intent to injure.  They were found not guilty of the more serious charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.   It is accepted that all three are to be sentenced on the basis that they are secondary parties to the offending.

[3]      It will be necessary for me to consider sentencing separately in relation to each of the six offenders but there is general background that is relevant to all.

Background facts

[4]      At about 5.55 p.m. on 10 October 2009 there was an angry exchange of text messages between one of the victims of the offending Jared Baker which led to Mr Baker and Mr Karl Lurch going to Mr Wilson’s address in Broadway, Stratford where there was an altercation between Mr Wilson and Mr Baker.  Karl Lurch and Jared Baker then returned to 110 Celia Street and continued to socialise in the garage at that address where a party for Mr Baker’s one year old daughter had been held earlier in the day.

[5]      Rhys Wilson made known the altercation at his Broadway address with Jared Baker to some of his associates.  They agreed to seek retribution against Mr Baker. At 6.05 p.m. a text message was sent among the associates organising a group to go to Mr Baker’s address.  A group of associates convened at the home address of Mr Goss.   There was discussion about what the group planned to do.   Further text messaging followed, including a text asking Mr Baker where he was.

[6]      At about 7.05 p.m. a group of about twenty people in four vehicles arrived outside 110 Celia Street.  The men to be sentenced today were all part of that group. The occupants got out of the vehicles.  Some of them stood outside the gate to the property at 110 Celia Street.   Some were yelling abuse towards those inside the address.  They called for Jared Baker to come outside.  The evidence was that those who remained outside the address on the  grass  verge or the  road, included Mr Cameron, Mr Phillips, Mr Dean Sanson and Mr Wilson.

[7]      Jared Baker and Karl Lurch moved just outside the garage to see what was going on.  Those in the group who were at the gate to the property, unlatched the gate and rushed on to the property.  Mr Maxwell and Mr Whale were at the forefront of that group.   Reece Maxwell went directly to Karl Lurch and struck him on the head with his right fist which caused Mr Lurch to fall to the ground.  When he was on the ground he was punched and kicked.  Mr Lurch was further attacked when he struggled to his feet.

[8]      Jared Baker was also assaulted and was struck when he tried to intervene on behalf of Karl Lurch.  Karl Lurch’s partner, Nadia Quirke, was punched when she tried to protect Mr Lurch from the assaults.   His sister, Natalie Lurch, was also punched.

[9]      Holes were caused to the walls in the garage.  Furniture and other items were damaged or broken.  Broken glass was strewn about the garage area and there was a lot of blood on the floor and in the hallway leading into the house.   One of the persons present threw a child’s high chair at the sliding glass door to the lounge where a thirteen year old girl and younger children were present.

[10]     There was evidence at trial that one and possibly two of the group who went on to the property and attacked Mr Lurch and Mr Baker, carried chains, but there was no evidence that either Mr Maxwell or Mr Whale carried or used a chain during the attack.

[11]     There was no evidence that any of Whetu Cameron, Jacky Phillips, Dean Sanson and Rhys Wilson participated in the physical assaults or in the throwing of bottles and other items.  The evidence was that they remained in various positions outside the address.

[12]     The attack against Mr Lurch gave rise to the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.  The attack against Mr Baker gave rise to the charge of injuring with intent to injure.   The Crown relied on s 66(2) of the Crimes Act

1961.  It is implicit in the guilty pleas entered to those charges, and implicit in the jury verdicts of guilty on the second of those charges, that the offenders were part of a common intention formed with one or more of the group to go around to the address at 110 Celia Street and attack Mr Lurch and/or Mr Baker.

[13]     Mr Lurch suffered a deep laceration to the top of his head approximately ten centimetres long which required nine metal staples.  He suffered bruising to his face and eye and had to have twelve stitches to the inside and outside of his mouth.  He suffered fractured ribs, bruising to his abdomen and general soreness in his body. Jared Baker received a gash over one eye which had to be glued shut.   He also

received cuts and grazes to his hands and suffered general soreness in his body. Nadia Quirke was bruised in her lower back and Natalie Lurch suffered a black eye and swelling to her face.

[14]     There was considerable damage to property and items in the garage.

[15]     The offenders played differing roles in the offending.   Some were there to provide encouragement and support by way of numbers.   Whetu Cameron, Jacky Phillips, Dean  Sanson and  Rhys  Wilson  were part  of  that  group.    Others  were actively involved in the assaults.  Reece Maxwell and Shane Whale were part of that group.  Some were involved in the organisation of the group to go to 110 Celia Street and carry out the attack.  Although Mr Wilson says that he was not responsible for organising the attack to carry out retribution against Jared Baker, his advice to his associates triggered events which ultimately led to this very serious attack and the serious assaults which resulted.  He certainly did nothing to stop it.  He admitted, and the evidence at trial confirmed, that he sent text messages to Jared Baker.

Victim impact statements

[16]     Victim impact statements have been filed by Karl Lurch and Jared Baker.  Mr Lurch refers to the injuries he suffered which required him to stay in New Plymouth for a week and two days after the attack which meant that he was unable to accept an offer of fulltime work as a steel fixer.  Mr Baker refers to the incident ruining the day of his daughter’s first birthday and that he was upset about how Karl Lurch was hurt when he had nothing to do with the matter.  He referred also to the trauma of Mrs Lurch and the younger sister, Natalie Lurch.

Aggravating factors of the offending

[17]     There  are  a  number  of  aggravating  factors  of  the  offending  under  the Sentencing  Act  and  the  guideline  judgment  of  R  v  Taueki  which  the  Crown developed in submissions.1

1      R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372.

•Use of violence: the victims were punched and kicked, and Karl Lurch was hit with a chain.

•    Use of weapons (a chain, bottles and chairs were involved).

•    Attack to the heads of the victims.

•    Home invasion.

•Extent of harm to the victims, two of whom were hospitalised and received quite serious injuries.

•Multiple victims, wounding of the victim Karl Lurch and injuring in relation to the victim Baker, Nadia Quirke and Natalie Lurch.

•    Some pre-meditation in the text message exchanges and the meeting at Mr

Goss’s address before going to the scene of the offending in four vehicles.

•    Multiple attackers.

•An element of vigilante action.  The offending occurred in retaliation for an earlier incident relating to Rhys Wilson and also apparently in relation to issues between Rawiri Goss and Jared Baker.

Mitigating factors of the offending

[18]     There are no mitigating factors of the offending.  However, the differing roles of each of the offenders needs to be appropriately taken into consideration.

Sentencing indication

[19]     On 11 May 2010 Asher J gave a sentencing indication.  He considered that the offending fell into the mid to upper end of Band 2 of the judgment in R v Taueki. The Judge indicated a starting point of eight and a half years imprisonment for the principal offenders.  When the sentencing indication was given Messrs Maxwell and Whale were facing an additional charge of aggravated burglary on which they have since been discharged.  Further, Asher J took into account that a weapon, namely a chain, was used by them in the offending, and treated this as an aggravating factor. As I have noted, the evidence did not establish this as a fact.   I accept that the sentencing indication given by Asher J in respect of Mr Maxwell and Mr Whale is now of little relevance and I set it to one side.

[20]     However,  the  sentencing  indication  given  in  relation  to  the  secondary offenders remains relevant.  Asher J said:2

I approach the position of the secondary offenders with some caution.  While there seems to be little doubt about the actions of Messrs Maxwell and Whale, assuming that they are correctly identified, there may be variations in the conduct of the other six accused who did not participate in the actual physical attack.   Some may have played a greater role than others in the organisation, preparation or encouragement of the attack.  Some may have gone further off the road and towards the buildings than others.

It is impossible to nuance this sentencing indication on such issues, in the absence of more detailed proven facts.   For starting point purposes I will treat them all in the same category.  I assume that they all knowingly went to the victims’ address with the intention that there should be an assault by some of them on the victims.  I assume that they got out of their cars and were there and witnessed the attack.  I assume that they were encouraging and supportive of the attack, but did nothing to actually physically assist the perpetrators.   I assume that they did not get close to the victims and did nothing to assist in the actual assaults.  I assume that they did not go into the victims’ house.

[21]     Asher J considered the secondary offenders were all involved to a low degree of culpability.  He took into account the element of provocation, but also the serious nature of the attack and the harm done to the victims.  He considered a starting point of two and a half years imprisonment to be appropriate.3

Parity in relation to the secondary offenders

[22]     One of the secondary offenders, Chris Sanson, was sentenced by Cooper J4 for his part in the offending following guilty pleas to both charges.  He did not play a significant or active role in organising the group to carry out the attacks.  Cooper J noted the starting point for all secondary offenders indicated by Asher J of two and a half years imprisonment.  He adopted a starting point for Chris Sanson of two years and two months.  For Mr Sanson’s youth and his guilty plea (which he said entitled Mr Sanson to a twenty per cent reduction in the sentence that would otherwise have

been  imposed),  he  reduced  the  sentence  to  eighteen  months  imprisonment,  a reduction from the starting point of eight months.  The final sentence imposed was nine months home detention.

[23]     I sentenced Rawiri Goss for his part in the offending following guilty pleas to both charges.5   Mr Goss was sentenced on the basis that he played an active role in the organisation of the offending.  I took a starting point of two years nine months for the lead offence.  A discount of four months was allowed for mitigating factors being Mr Goss’s youth, that he was a first offender and expressed qualified remorse. A further discount of five months (17.2 per cent) was allowed for the guilty pleas (entered later than those of Chris Sanson who was accorded a discount of twenty per cent for his guilty pleas).   The end sentence imposed was twelve months home

detention on the lead charge and six months home detention on the charge of injuring with intent to injure, the sentences to be served concurrently.

Purposes and principles

[24]     The Crown has referred to the purposes and principles in ss 7 and 8 of the

Sentencing Act 2002.  I take them into account.

Sentencing

Reece Maxwell

[25]     The sentencing guideline judgment in R v Taueki applies.  Grievous bodily harm offending falling within Band 1 attracts a starting point of three to six years imprisonment; Band 2 five to ten years and Band 3 nine to fourteen years.

[26]     The Court of Appeal stated that Band 1 will be appropriate for offending involving violence at the lower end of the spectrum of grievous bodily harm offences.6    Where there are none of the aggravating factors referred to, a starting

5      R v Goss HC New Plymouth CRI-2009-021-001570, 28 October 2010.

point at the bottom end of this range would normally be called for. 7   Where one or more of those factors is present a higher starting point would be required.

[27]     Band 2 applies to grievous bodily harm offending which features two or three of the aggravating factors referred to at [31] of the judgment.8    The Court gave an example of a concerted street attack:9

(a)       Concerted street attack:  For a street attack in which a victim is set upon by a group of attackers in an attack involving the use of weapons found at the scene, a starting point at the lower end of band two would be indicated.  If the attack involves blows to the head or other serious injuries are caused, or there is premeditation, then a starting point higher in the band two spectrum would be required.

[28]     It will be noted from this example that where the aggravating factors of blows to the head, serious injuries and premeditation are present then a starting point in the higher band 2 spectrum would be required.   Those factors are present in this offending, but I accept that the premeditation was not at a high level.

[29]     Given the presence of those factors and also that this offending involved the invasion of a private residence where there were young children present, that there were multiple victims and multiple attackers, I consider, that the offending falls at the lower end of Band 2, even though no weapons were used by Mr Maxwell and Mr Whale.  However, the Crown accepts that, comparing levels of culpability, a starting point at the top of Band 1 is appropriate.

[30]     Mr Maxwell was the first offender who rushed on to the property, having opened the gate, and he initiated the violence by punching Karl Lurch in the face and causing him to fall to the ground. I take a starting point of four and a half years imprisonment.  This point is towards the top of Band 1.

[31]     Turning to factors personal to Mr Maxwell.  He has a considerable history of offending including thirty eight convictions, eight of which are for violent offending.

7 At [31].

8 At [38].

A further aggravating factor is that he was on parole and therefore still subject to a sentence of imprisonment, at the time of this offending.   Further, he absconded to avoid arrest on these charges.   I apply an uplift of six months which is the uplift advocated by the Crown to take account of those aggravating factors.  But I observe that the uplift is conservative and could well have been higher.  The revised starting point is five years imprisonment.

[32]     Mr Maxwell took full responsibility for his offending and acknowledged to the probation officer who prepared the pre-sentence report that he was the main offender amongst the group.  He expressed remorse in respect of the female victims and for his actions taking place in front of the children at the address, but he said that he would “do it all again” as far as one of the victims was concerned.  He appeared to justify this because the victim faced no legal consequence for his previous actions, presumably a reference to the altercation between Jared Baker and Rhys Wilson. This was wrong reasoning by Mr Maxwell.

[33]     Mr Maxwell is assessed as being of high risk of re-offending.

[34]     Mr Maxwell had indicated his willingness to plead guilty at callover to the two charges to which he ultimately entered guilty pleas and in respect of which he is to be sentenced.  The basis of his entering guilty pleas at that time was that he was not carrying the chain.   The Crown did not accept the pleas on that basis and the matter proceeded to trial until the point when the Crown evidence failed to establish that  Mr  Maxwell  was carrying  a  chain.    When  that  situation  became  clear  Mr Maxwell entered guilty pleas to both charges.

[35]     In the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Hessell v R10 the Court said:

At  the  other  end  of  the  range,  there  may  be  cases  in  which  there  are significant  benefits  from  a  plea,  warranting  a  sentence  reduction,  even though the plea comes very late. After a trial has commenced some real justification should be required before any allowance is made but there are from time to time instances where an allowance is justified.

10    Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135 at [76].

All these considerations call for evaluation by the sentencing judge who, in the end, must stand back and decide whether the outcome of the process followed is the right sentence.

[36]     The Supreme Court said that a maximum sentence for a guilty plea should be twenty five per cent.11   However, the Crown accepts that in the case of Mr Maxwell the full one-third discount which applied under Hessell in the Court of Appeal12  is appropriate and that is Mr Brosnahan’s clear submissions.   The circumstances in which  Mr  Maxwell  first  indicated  and  then  entered  his  guilty  pleas  are  highly

unusual.  I accept that fairness requires that the full thirty three per cent discount be allowed.  I note for the sake of completeness that the thirty three per cent discount for guilty pleas under the Court of Appeal judgment in Hessell included any allowance for remorse.

[37]     From the revised starting point then of five years I allow a discount of one- third or twenty months for the guilty pleas.  The end sentence is three years and four months imprisonment on the lead charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

[38]     On the charge of injuring with intent the sentence will be eighteen months imprisonment to be served concurrently.

Shane Whale

[39]     Mr Whale was one of  the two primary offenders. With Mr Maxwell he rushed on to the property and was an active participant in the violence that ensued. There was no evidence that he was carrying a weapon.  There is little to differentiate his role in the offending from that of Mr Maxwell.   The evidence was that Mr Maxwell struck the initial heavy blow to Mr Lurch’s head which caused him to fall to the ground.  But the evidence was that Mr Whale was in the forefront of the attack and the assaults on the victims at 110 Celia Street, although the evidence was less precise as to the assaults he inflicted.   I take a starting point of four years three months imprisonment.

11 At [75].

12    R v Hessell [2010] 2 NZLR 298 (CA).

[40]     Mr  Whale  at  the  age  of twenty three  years  has  a  lamentable  conviction history.   He has a total of twenty one previous convictions.   Only three are for violent offending, described in the pre-sentence report as “a minimal history of violent offending”.   I observe that it is serious enough.   I apply an uplift of three months for these personal aggravating factors.

[41]     Mr Whale is assessed as being at low to moderate risk of re-offending.  He expressed remorse for the victims which is recorded in the pre-sentence report and he expressed regret for his actions and stated that next time he would let his friends deal with their own issues and not become involved.   This shows at least some insight into the nature of this offending.  From the revised starting point of four and a half years imprisonment I allow a discount of three months for Mr Whale’s remorse and acceptance of his part in this offending.

[42]     Mr  Whale  entered  guilty  pleas  partway through  the  trial,  but  unlike  Mr Maxwell, he had not previously indicated willingness to plead guilty.   Given the lateness of his pleas and the fact that they did not save the time or expense of a trial or relieve witnesses from the stress of having to give evidence, only a minimal discount can be allowed.

[43]     For the late guilty pleas, I allow a further discount of six months (nearly twelve per cent).   As I have said, any discount for such a late plea can only be minimal but I take into account that the Crown had maintained the position that a chain was carried until such time as the evidence at trial did not establish that, whereupon Mr Whale entered his guilty pleas.

[44]     The end sentence is therefore three years and nine months imprisonment on the lead charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

[45]     On the charge of injuring with intent the sentence will be eighteen months imprisonment to be served concurrently.

Rhys Wilson

[46]     Mr  Wilson  is  one  of  the  secondary offenders  who  remained  outside  the address at 110 Celia Street.   He had been involved in the earlier altercation with Jared Baker and it was his advice about this to his associates that triggered the coming together of the group to seek retribution against Jared Baker.

[47]    Asher J indicated a starting point in the range of two and a half years imprisonment for the secondary offenders.  He considered the second offenders were all involved to a low degree of culpability.   He took into account the element of provocation but also the serious nature of the attack and the harm done to the victims.  On the evidence the involvement of Mr Wilson in organising the offending appears to have been at a lesser level than Mr Goss.  But he was not just a “hanger on”.   I consider a starting point of two  years  four months imprisonment to be appropriate for Mr Wilson’s part in the offending.

[48]   Mr Wilson is aged twenty three years.   He has twenty three previous convictions, but none for violent offending.   In the absence of relevant previous convictions I do not propose to apply an uplift to the starting point.

[49]   The pre-sentence report records that Mr Wilson presented as genuinely remorseful and apologetic to the victims.  He took full responsibility and accepted there was no excuse for his behaviour.  His risk of re-offending is assessed as low.

[50]     Mr Wilson is employed.  Two very supportive letters are attached to the pre- sentence report from representatives of his employer Taranaki Abattoirs Co (1992) Limited.   A further letter was handed up in Court today which confirms that his employer is willing in consultation with Mr Wilson to facilitate flexible working hours.  Mr Wilson’s partner reports that over the last two years he has settled down and provided her and their two sons with stability and financial security.   Those factors are in Mr Wilson’s favour and it has to be a matter of great regret that he lapsed into involvement with this serious criminal offending when there are really positive influences in his life and positive contributions he is able to make.

[51]     Mr Wilson entered guilty pleas partway through the trial.  He was the third of the three accused who did so.

[52]     As I have mentioned, the Supreme Court said in Hessell:13

... some real justification is required before any allowance is made for guilty pleas at such a late stage.

[53]     The pleas did not save the necessity for the trial or of any witnesses from giving evidence. There was not a significant shift or a critical factor in the evidence that impacted on Mr Wilson as was the situation with Mr Maxwell and Mr Whale.

[54]     For the genuine remorse expressed by Mr Wilson and the other positive factors in his favour I allow a discount of three months (nearly eleven per cent )from the starting point of two years four months imprisonment.  I also allow a discount of one month (approximately four per cent) for the late guilty plea, to reach an end sentence of two years imprisonment on the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

[55]     Having  reached  a  sentence  of  two  years  imprisonment  I am  required  to consider home detention.  Mr Hannam has urged a community based sentence.  I am not prepared to consider such a sentence but I am prepared to consider a sentence of home detention.  Given the positive aspects of the pre-sentence report, the support of his employer and Mr Wilson’s own commitment to maintain his life on a better path I will consider home detention if there is a suitable home detention report.   It is unfortunate that such a report is not presently available to the Court.  This means that the Court is required to adjourn the sentencing of Mr Wilson to enable such a report to be provided.

[56]     Mr Wilson stands on the cusp.   I consider the end sentence of two years I have reached to be lenient. He did not early on accept responsibility for his part in the offending by entering guilty pleas and cannot gain the benefit of the significant discount that would otherwise have been available.   He seems now, however, to accept responsibility for his part in the offending although in my view he tends still

to minimise his part in it.  He is a young man with family responsibilities who has shown commitment to making a change for the better.  If this offending is regarded as an unfortunate episode, provoked no doubt by the conduct of Jared Baker – which provides no excuse for criminal offending as Mr Wilson must now clearly realise – then a non-custodial sentence is one that should be considered.

[57]     I therefore adjourn the sentencing of Mr Wilson to a date to be fixed by the Registrar and I direct that a home detention appendix to the pre-sentence report be completed as soon as possible.

Whetu Cameron

[58]     Mr Cameron, Mr Phillips and Mr Dean Sanson were found guilty by the jury of the charge of injuring with intent to injure which related primarily to the assaults on Jared Baker.  That offence carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment which contrasts with the maximum penalty for the grievous bodily harm offence of fourteen years imprisonment.

[59]     The guideline sentencing judgment is R v Harris14  in which the Court of

Appeal set out three bands.15

a)       Band 1 where there is little injury and few aggravating features and where the sentencing Judge considers the culpability to be at a level which might have been better reflected in a less serious charge, a sentence of less than imprisonment can be appropriate.

b)Band 2 where the injuries are moderate, sentences up to two years imprisonment can be justified.

c)       Band 3 for serious injury, sentences from eighteen months up to a maximum of five years can be justified.

14    R v Harris [2008] NZCA 528.

[60]     The Court said that beyond the extent of the injury, the appropriate starting point will depend upon the effect of any aggravating and mitigating factors on the seriousness of the conduct and the criminality involved.16

[61]     I  have  previously  identified  the  aggravating  factors  of  this  offending. However, in the case of Jared Baker his injuries were modest, significantly less serious than those of Karl Lurch.  I consider the offending is appropriately placed in Band 1 of Harris because the role of Mr Cameron Mr Phillips and Mr Dean Sanson was limited to, by their presence, providing support for this offending and increasing the intimidation intended for the victims.

[62]     Mr Cameron is aged nineteen, eighteen years at the time of the offending.  He has no relevant previous convictions.  He has only four convictions and none are for violence.   He appears genuinely remorseful and says he has learned from this experience when he was foolish enough to “go along for the ride”.

[63]     I consider an appropriate sentence in the case of Mr Cameron to be 200 hours of community work.  Were it not for the factors personal to Mr Cameron to which I have just referred, a sentence of community detention in addition to community work would have been appropriate because of the serious nature of this offending.

Jacky Phillips

[64]     While  the  role  of  Mr  Phillips  in  the  offending  is  similar  to  that  of  Mr Cameron, he is a man aged thirty five years, with an extensive history of offending dating back to 1991.  He has fifty six previous convictions, eight of which are for violent offending.   His previous offending includes a number of breaches of community work.    He  has  an  address  at  71  Swansea  Road,  Stratford  which  is reported to be suitable for an electronically monitored sentence of home detention or community detention.  I have given serious consideration to whether a sentence of home detention should be imposed in respect of Mr Phillips.

[65]     Although Mr Phillips was released from prison only in August 2009 and this offending occurred in October 2009, he is reported to have been living on his own in a rented flat for the last twelve months and the report writer suggests that he is trying to stabilise his life significantly.   The report states that if he continues, he should reduce his current assessed medium risk of re-offending.

[66]     Taking into account those circumstances personal to Mr Phillips, I consider a sentence of community detention coupled with a sentence of community work to be appropriate.

[67]     I impose a sentence of three months community detention.  The community detention address will be 71A Swansea Road, Stratford.   The curfew days will be Monday to Sunday (seven days per week, total eighty four hours per week).

The curfew hours will be:

Monday 1900 – Tuesday 0700
Tuesday 1900 – Wednesday 0700
Wednesday 1900 – Thursday 0700
Thursday 1900 – Friday 0700
Friday 1900 – Saturday 0700
Saturday 1900 – Sunday 0700
Sunday 1900 – Monday 0700

The first curfew will start on Friday 10 December 2010.

[68]     In addition there will be a sentence of 250 hours community work.  Those sentences are to be served together.

Dean Sanson

[69]     Mr Dean Sanson is aged twenty five years.  He has a significant offending history with  a  total  of  thirty two  convictions,  six  of  which  are  convictions  for violence.

[70]     The pre-sentence report states that Mr Sanson is in a committed relationship with his partner.  They have three pre-school children and a fourth is expected.  They have considerable support from extended family.

[71]     The  report  writer  states  that  while  Mr  Sanson’s  risk  of  re-offending  is assessed as medium, this should reduce over time as he develops more constructive activities and becomes more motivated to be a better role model for his children.  Mr Sanson seems to be aware that his offending issues relate to his choice of associates, his passive endorsement of violence by others and his poor decision making at critical times.

[72]     The sentence imposed on Mr Sanson is four months community detention which will be coupled with community work.   The longer period of community detention will be coupled with a lesser period of community work at the request of Mr Sanson’s counsel, Mr Keegan as Mr Sanson is already serving 200 hours community work.   There will therefore be imposed a sentence of 100 hours of community work  with  the  sentence  of  four  months  community detention.    The curfew address will be 1 Avon Street, Stratford.  The curfew days will be Monday to Sunday (seven days per week, total eighty four hours per week).

The curfew hours will be:

Monday 1900 – Tuesday 0700
Tuesday 1900 – Wednesday 0700
Wednesday 1900 – Thursday 0700
Thursday 1900 – Friday 0700
Friday 1900 – Saturday 0700
Saturday 1900 – Sunday 0700
Sunday 1900 – Monday 0700

The first curfew will start on Friday 10 December 2010.

[73]     As I have noted the pre-sentence report states that Mr Sanson is currently a sentence of 200 hours of community work.  The sentence of 100 hours community work which I have imposed will be in addition to that sentence.

Summary

[74]     Attached to the sentencing notes will be a summary of the sentences I have imposed on all six offenders.

[75]     Please stand.

[76]     Mr Maxwell:  The sentence imposed on you is three years and four months imprisonment on the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. A sentence of eighteen months imprisonment is imposed on the charge of injuring with intent to be served concurrently.

[77]     Mr Whale:  The sentence is three years and nine months imprisonment on the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.   Eighteen months imprisonment is imposed on the charge of injuring with intent.  Those sentences are to be served concurrently.

[78]     Mr Wilson:  You heard my remarks.  Your sentencing stands adjourned and I would like to discuss the arrangements with you and your counsel at the conclusion of my sentencing remarks if you would remain please.

[79]     Mr Cameron:  The sentence is 200 hours community work.

[80]     Mr Phillips:   The sentence is three months community detention and 250 hours community work to be served concurrently.

[81]     Mr Dean Sanson:  The sentence is four months community detention and 100 hours of community work.   The sentence of 100 hours of community work is in addition to the sentence of community work you are currently serving.

[82]     Those are the sentences imposed on you.  I hope you will take to heart the things that have been said today.  I hope this Court will never see you again.

[83]     Please stand down.

SUMMARY

Reece Maxwell – Three years and four months imprisonment on the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Eighteen months imprisonment on the charge of injuring with intent – to be served concurrently.

Shane Whale – Three years and nine months imprisonment on the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Eighteen months imprisonment on the charge of injuring with intent – to be served concurrently.

Rhys Wilson –Sentencing adjourned.

Whetu Cameron – 200 hours of community work.

Jacky Phillips –Three months community detention and 250 hours community work

– to be served concurrently.

Dean Sanson – Four months community detention and 100 hours of community work – to be served concurrently.  The sentence of 100 hours of community work is in addition to the sentence of community Dean Sanson is currently serving.