R v Morrison - [2007] NZCA 78

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA372/06
[2007] NZCA 78
THE QUEEN
v
DEAN MORRISON
Hearing:6 March 2007

Court:Chambers, Gendall and Heath JJ
Counsel:M E Goodwin for Appellant

P K Feltham for Crown

Judgment:19 March 2007 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The time for appealing is extended.
B        The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Heath J)
Introduction
[1]       Mr Morrison was committed for trial on one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and, in the alternative, one count of wounding with intent to injure. The charges arose out of an incident that occurred on the morning of 22 June 2004 during which Mr Morrison attacked the complainant, Mr Hohepa.
[2]       Mr Morrison was tried before Judge Weir and a jury in the District Court at Rotorua. The jury found him not guilty on the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm but guilty on the alternative charge.
[3]       Mr Morrison was sentenced by Judge Weir on 15 April 2005. Sentencing took place before the guideline judgment of this Court in R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA) was delivered on 30 June 2005. Accordingly Judge Weir applied the pre-existing authorities.
[4]       Judge Weir imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment. Mr Morrison appeals against that sentence.
[5]       The sentence appeal was filed late. Without opposition from the Crown, we make an order extending time for bringing the appeal.
Background facts
[6]       Mr Hohepa was known to Mr Morrison. It appears that, for some time, there had been a long-running dispute between Mr Morrison and Mr Hohepa’s son.
[7]       On 22 June 2004, at about 9am, Mr Morrison was driving into Rotorua. Mr Hohepa was driving in the opposite direction. Mr Morrison turned his vehicle around and went to where Mr Hohepa had parked his vehicle.
[8]       As Mr Hohepa got out of his vehicle, he dislodged a jack-handle that had been in his car. Mr Hohepa picked up the jack-handle. Immediately after that, Mr Morrison confronted him.
[9]       After an argument developed, Mr Hohepa went back to his vehicle. At this stage, no violent conduct had occurred. Mr Hohepa’s evidence was that Mr Morrison attacked his vehicle, kicking it and then smashing the front window. As Mr Hohepa got out of the vehicle Mr Morrison lunged at him, biting him on the cheek. Mr Morrison tackled Mr Hohepa to the ground, picked up the jack-handle and hit Mr Hohepa over the head, inflicting a gash to his forehead of some 5cm which required stitching. Mr Hohepa was also kicked on the left side of his head. The photographic evidence suggests that the injuries inflicted were relatively serious.
[10]     The Judge described Mr Morrison as “a fit, strong, young man”, while Mr Hohepa had a partially paralysed left leg which had resulted from a stroke some years ago.
[11]     Mr Morrison has spent only about four to five months in the…

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 Morrison

Details

AGLC: R v Morrison [2007] NZCA 78
Case: [2007] NZCA 78
Decision Date: 19 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Dean Morrison, the appellant, Mr. Morrison, was convicted in the District Court of wounding with intent to injure and was sentenced to four years imprisonment. The appeal was against the sentence imposed. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, with Chambers, Gendall, and Heath JJ presiding. The appellant was represented by M E Goodwin, while P K Feltham represented the Crown. The judgment was given on 19 March 2007 at 2 pm.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was excessive or inappropriate. The appellant argued that the sentence should be less than four years' imprisonment, given the mitigating factors and the nature of the injuries inflicted. The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that the sentence was within the range available to the sentencing Judge, and the appeal should be dismissed.

The Court considered the submissions made by both parties and concluded that the starting point employed by the sentencing Judge was within the range available to him. The Court also found that the uplift of six months for aggravating features personal to the offender was appropriate. The Court held that the sentence imposed was not excessive or inappropriate and dismissed the appeal against sentence.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal upheld the sentence imposed by the District Court and dismissed the appeal against sentence. The appellant, Mr. Morrison, was required to serve the four-year imprisonment term as determined by the District Court.

Orders