[1] Mr Mudford, on your guilty pleas to one representative charge of each robbery1 and assault with a weapon,2 van Bohemen J entered convictions against you in this Court on 4 July 2022.3 The Crown offers no evidence on the balance of its charges against you, and I dismiss them.

[2] I am now to sentence you on your convictions. In sentencing you, I must accept as proven all facts essential to your guilty pleas.4 The Crown suggests a starting point of seven-and-a-half years’ imprisonment for robbery, uplifted by one year to include assault with a weapon. Your lawyer, Charles Bean, recommends three years’ imprisonment, uplifted by six months for the assault and another three months for offending while subject to release conditions, and then there are issues about discounts from those numbers. I am not bound by the lawyers’ views. I have to come to my own decision on the appropriate sentence for your convictions. I must satisfy myself of that sentence for the gravity (or seriousness) of your offending, including your culpability (or responsibility) for it.

Background

[3]I briefly address the background to your offending.

[4] After an encounter late the previous day, you and your two co-defendants co-ordinated to confront the two men and two women victims of your offending in their car at an isolated rural property at Hamilton’s Rotokauri in the early hours of Sunday, 16 January 2021. You punched one man to his jaw and stole the victims’ jewellery, handbags and phonecards, demanding they reset their cellphones. Later, having kept the victims until dawn in a house on the property, you hit the other man on the back of his head with a hammer.

[5] I have victim impact statements from three of the victims, who say your offending against them caused them severe anxiety and distress, including of the associated publicity, leading to two losing wages, job, home and custody of their child

1      Crime Act 1961, s 234(1): maximum penalty, 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 202C(1)(a): maximum penalty, five years’ imprisonment.
3      R v Mudford HC Hamilton CRI-2021-019-0273, 4 July 2022 at [4].
4      Sentencing Act 2002, s 24(1)(b).

and relocating to the central North Island to be closer to family, and the third becoming seriously introverted and overly vigilant by reason of the risk you presented to her life.

[6] You have eight prior convictions from 2018 and 2020, largely for dishonesty offending, all but one resulting in brief imprisonment sentences. Your present offending occurred while you were subject to release conditions, having only been released…

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 Mudford

Details

AGLC: R v Mudford [2022] NZHC 2222
Case: [2022] NZHC 2222
Decision Date: 1 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Mudford involved the sentencing of Troy Mudford, who had pleaded guilty to robbery and assault with a weapon. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Mudford's convictions, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending, as well as personal circumstances and any discounts for Mudford's guilty pleas. The Crown suggested a starting point of seven-and-a-half years’ imprisonment for the robbery, uplifted by one year for the assault with a weapon, while Mudford's lawyer recommended three years’ imprisonment, uplifted by six months for the assault and another three months for offending while subject to release conditions.

The court considered the background of Mudford's offending, which involved confronting and assaulting the victims at an isolated rural property, stealing their belongings, and causing severe anxiety and distress to the victims. The court also took into account Mudford's personal circumstances, including his age, motivation to change his antisocial conduct, and his efforts to regain contact with his son and obtain employment while in prison. The court further considered the Department of Corrections' pre-sentence report, which noted Mudford's family background and disconnection from his family and culture, as well as a report from Waata Heathcote, who believed there was an opportunity for intervention to allow Mudford's realisations to become realities.

The court applied a two-stage approach to sentencing, first identifying a starting point for the offending and then taking into account all aggravating and mitigating factors personal to Mudford, together with a discount for his guilty pleas. The court determined that Mudford's offending was aggravated by its premeditated and planned nature, the use of violence, and the lasting impact on the victims, but found no mitigating features. The court then calculated a starting point of four years and six months’ imprisonment, which it adjusted to account for personal factors and Mudford's guilty pleas. The court allowed an overall 20 per cent discount, including a 10 per cent measure for Mudford's youth, and a 15 per cent discount for his guilty pleas. The court sentenced Mudford to two years and eleven months' imprisonment for the robbery conviction and twelve months' imprisonment for the assault with a weapon conviction, to be served concurrently.

Orders