IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2022-404-000092
[2022] NZHC 1062
BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
Appellant
AND
AL MENO
Respondent
Hearing:
9 May 2022
Appearances:
F Faull for Appellant
M Hamlin and O Skelton for Respondent
Judgment:
16 May 2022
JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J
This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 16 May 2022 at 12.00 midday
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………
Solicitors/counsel:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau M J Hamlin, Auckland
R v MENO [2022] NZHC 1062 [16 May 2022]
Introduction
[1] The respondent, Al Meno, pleaded guilty to two charges of assault with intent to injure,1 three charges of male assaults female,2 two charges of intimidation3 and a single charge of breach of a protection order.4 He was sentenced in the Manukau District Court on 9 February 2022 by Judge P Recordon to eight months’ home detention.5
[2] The Crown appeals the sentence. It says that the Judge erred in principle and that the resulting sentence was manifestly inadequate. In particular, it says that four errors were made by the Judge. It says that he:
(a)failed to impose an uplift for Mr Meno’s relevant previous convictions;
(b)allowed excessive discounts for Mr Meno’s personal mitigating factors;
(c)allowed a discount from the notional end sentence of imprisonment for time that Mr Meno had spent in custody on remand as well as time Mr Meno had spent on electronically monitored (EM) bail; and
(d)erred in exercising his discretion to commute the sentence to one of home detention.
[3]Mr Meno opposes the appeal.
Factual background
[4] The victim of the offending was Mr Meno’s ex-partner. She and Mr Meno met and entered into a relationship in or about August 2019. The offending commenced shortly thereafter and continued through until December 2020.
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 193. Maximum penalty 3 years’ imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 194(b). Maximum penalty 2 years’ imprisonment.
3 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a) and (3). Maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment or
$2,000 fine.
4 Family Violence Act 2018, s 112(1)(a) and (3). Maximum penalty 3 years’ imprisonment.
5 R v Meno [2022] NZDC 2137.
Charge 1 – intimidation
[5] Soon after their relationship began, Mr Meno persuaded the victim to cease using contraception. She soon became pregnant. While Mr Meno was initially supportive of the pregnancy, his attitude soon changed. In September/October 2019, when Mr Meno and the victim were in Mr Meno’s car, Mr Meno threatened the victim and told her that she should get an abortion. He said that he would take the baby away from her and that he had the money and resources to do so. When the victim refused, Mr Meno threatened to prevent her from having the baby and stated that he could hit her hard enough in the stomach to make her miscarry. The victim asked Mr Meno to drop her home, crying out of fear as he did so. As a result of Mr Meno’s threats, the victim feared…
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 Meno
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Meno [2022] NZHC 1062
Case
[2022] NZHC 1062
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal was brought by the Crown against the sentence of eight months’ home detention imposed by the Manukau District Court on Al Meno, who had pleaded guilty to eight charges of violence against his ex-partner, including assault with intent to injure, intimidation and breaching a protection order. The Crown argued that the sentence was wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate. The appeal was allowed by Wylie J on the basis that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and wrong in principle, and a sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment was substituted. The Crown had argued that the District Court Judge had erred in not imposing an uplift for Meno’s previous convictions, in allowing excessive discounts for Meno’s personal mitigating factors, in allowing a discount for time spent on remand and electronically monitored bail, and in commuting the sentence to home detention. Wylie J found that an uplift was required and that the discounts allowed by the District Court were excessive and/or not available. Wylie J also found that a sentence of home detention was not available and was inadequate to reflect the seriousness of Meno’s offending.