R v MH - [2025] NZHC 501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2024-063-001741

[2025] NZHC 501

THE KING

v

MH

Hearing: 13 March 2025

Appearances:

L K McMaster for Crown J E Tarrant for Defendant

Sentence:

13 March 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF HARVEY J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitors, Rotorua
Jessica Tarrant, Barrister, Hamilton

R v MH [2025] NZHC 501 [13 March 2025]

Introduction

[1] MH, you appear for sentencing today having pleaded guilty to charges of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm,1 possession of an offensive weapon,2 threatening to kill3 and resisting Police.4

[2] Your case was transferred from the District Court to this Court because Ms McMaster, for the Crown, has asked for a sentence of preventative detention. She argues that such a sentence is appropriate in the circumstances because you pose a real risk of committing another qualifying violent offence if you were to be released at the end of a finite sentence. She also says that a further minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent of the end sentence is justified. Your counsel, Ms Tarrant, asks for a finite sentence so that you can access appropriate rehabilitative support and programmes, with the additional support of a strengthened extended supervision order (or ESO) when you are released.

[3] This sentence is in four parts. First, I outline the facts of your offending. Second, I discuss your personal circumstances. Third, I will fix your sentence. Finally, I will decide whether a sentence of preventative detention should be imposed.

The offending

[4] According to the agreed summary of facts, on the morning of 24 October 2023, you and your father were at home. An argument broke out after he refused to take you to another address. You threatened to punch the victim and you grabbed him as he tried to walk past you, manhandling him around the lounge and smashing a glass cabinet in the process. Your father was then able to get out of the house, as he jumped over the decking wall onto the driveway. You gave chase, grabbed him by the shoulders and tried to drag him back into the house. When that failed, you grabbed a large umbrella and struck him across the stomach area, breaking the umbrella.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(1). Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(b). Maximum penalty: three years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 306(1)(a). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 23(a). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.

[5] You then grabbed another weapon, a half-size steel shovel. When he saw you pick up the shovel, your father adopted a foetal position to protect himself. You aimed the shovel at his covered head and struck him with full force six to seven times — however, the blows struck his arm which he was using to shield his head. The attack ended when a member of the public intervened and…

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 MH

Details

AGLC: R v MH [2025] NZHC 501
Case: [2025] NZHC 501
Decision Date: 13 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

MH has pleaded guilty to charges of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, possession of an offensive weapon, threatening to kill, and resisting police. The Crown argued for a sentence of preventative detention on the basis that MH poses a real risk of committing another qualifying violent offence if released at the end of a finite sentence, while the defence argued for a finite sentence so that MH can access rehabilitative support and programmes. The court determined that a starting point of four years and four months' imprisonment was appropriate for the lead charge, with an additional uplift of 12 months for the remaining charges. After considering aggravating and mitigating personal factors, the court arrived at an end sentence of four years' imprisonment. The court also determined that a minimum period of imprisonment of 66 per cent of the end sentence was necessary to protect the community. Finally, the court found that preventative detention was not appropriate at this time, as MH has demonstrated rehabilitative potential and has not committed a qualifying offence since 2013. MH is sentenced to four years' imprisonment for the lead charge, with 12 months' imprisonment for the remaining charges to be served concurrently. MH must serve a minimum period of imprisonment of 66 per cent of that sentence, being two years and seven months. A firearms prohibition order is also made under s 39A of the Arms Act 1983.

Orders