R v Mead - [2019] NZHC 3065

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-044-1969

[2019] NZHC 3065

THE QUEEN

v

HIPIRINI BRIAN MEAD

Hearing: 22 November 2019

Counsel:

E J Kerr for Crown

A S Bloem for defendant

Judgment:

22 November 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF KATZ J

Solicitors:Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland Bloem & Associates, Auckland

R v MEAD [2019] NZHC 3065 [22 November 2019]

Introduction

[1] Mr Mead, you appear before me for sentence today having been convicted, following a guilty plea, of one charge of wounding with intent to injure.1

The offending

[2] You are currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in Paremoremo Prison. The victim of your offending was a fellow inmate.

[3] On 8 April 2019, you and the victim were in the prison exercise yard with two other prisoners, one of whom was Mr Nuku. You paired off to practise grappling and martial arts techniques with each other. You paired up with the victim.

[4] For reasons that are unclear, Mr Nuku put his sparring partner in a choke hold until he lost consciousness. Mr Nuku then started stabbing his unconscious sparring partner in the neck and head with a sharp piece of metal (known as a shank) that he had concealed in his pants.

[5] Your sparring partner, the victim, realised what was happening and attempted to intervene. You prevented him from doing so by punching him in the face, causing him to fall to the ground. You then continued to punch and kick him about the head and body while he was on the ground. The victim managed to get to his feet and again attempted to help the unconscious man being stabbed by Mr Nuku. You continued to prevent him from helping by repeatedly holding, punching and kicking him. The victim suffered a split lip and bruising and swelling to his face.

The starting point

[6] I will first set your sentence starting point and then adjust that for any factors that are personal to you.

[7] Mr Mead, you aimed a number of kicks and punches at the head and body of your victim, many of which were while he lay on the ground, trying to protect himself

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2): maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

in a foetal position. When the victim managed to stand, you continued to hold, punch and kick him. Your attack therefore involved serious violence. It was also unprovoked and gratuitous.2 Your victim was simply trying to help an unconscious man who was being stabbed in the head and neck. I do not accept the Crown submission, however, that your attack was prolonged. CCTV footage indicates that the entire incident lasted for under a minute and ceased once Corrections staff arrived.

[8] I also do not accept the Crown submission that the attack was premeditated on your part. Although Mr Nuku brought a weapon to the scene, you did not. Nor is there any…

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 Mead

Details

AGLC: R v Mead [2019] NZHC 3065
Case: [2019] NZHC 3065
Decision Date: 22 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendant, Hipirini Brian Mead, appeared before Katz J for sentencing following his conviction of wounding with intent to injure, a charge under the Crimes Act 1961. Mead, who was already serving a prison sentence, attacked a fellow inmate who was attempting to stop another prisoner from being stabbed. The court had to decide on the appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering factors such as the seriousness of the attack, its unprovoked and gratuitous nature, and the fact that it facilitated another crime. Katz J determined a starting point of three years' imprisonment, adjusted to account for personal mitigating factors and the defendant's guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of one year and six months, to be served cumulatively on his existing sentence.

The court assessed the seriousness of the offence, noting the unprovoked nature of the attack, the use of serious violence, and the defendant's role in preventing the victim from aiding another prisoner. Katz J highlighted the defendant's difficult personal and cultural background, which, while contributing to the offending, did not warrant a significant discount due to the seriousness of the crime. The judge also considered the defendant's rehabilitative prospects and his expressed remorse, albeit finding it insufficient to warrant a more substantial reduction in sentence. The totality principle was applied to ensure the cumulative sentence did not disproportionately exceed the gravity of the overall offending, resulting in a final sentence of one year and six months.

Orders