R v Nathan

[2023] NZHC 120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2021-020-2233

[2023] NZHC 120

THE KING

v

K-CYN JACK PAREZZ NATHAN

Hearing:

7 February 2023

Counsel:

S Manning for Crown

A Willis and S Cameron (via VMR) for Prisoner

Sentencing Notes:

7 February 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF CHURCHMAN J

[1]        Mr Nathan you have entered pleas of guilty to charges of attempted murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

[2]        You did so after receiving a sentencing indication of an end sentence of nine years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 50 per cent being four years six months.

[3]        The sentencing indication that I gave you covered the facts of the offending, analysed other similar cases in order to determine the appropriate starting point and made certain adjustments to reflect relevant factors. One of those adjustments of course was for the discount that recognised the effect that a plea of guilty would have.

R v NATHAN (SENTENCING NOTES) [2023] NZHC 120 [7 February 2023]

[4]        Publication of the sentencing indication is prohibited under s 63 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 until after sentencing.

[5]        I direct that, following the conclusion of this sentencing, the contents of that sentencing indication decision may be published.

[6]        The sentencing indication noted that if further specialist reports were available at sentencing, some adjustment to the sentence may be warranted.

[7]        I am not going to repeat what I said in the sentencing indication document but focus on the new information I have received and analyse whether it contains any information that might justify a further reduction from the level of the sentence indicated.

[8]        The new information is contained in the Provision of Advice to Courts and s 27 Cultural Reports.

[9]        The matters set out in the s 27 reports confirmed the issues that had been traversed by the various psychiatrist reports that had been obtained prior to the sentencing indication namely your whakapapa to Ngāti Kahungunu/Ngāti Porou. You have suffered from many of the disadvantages that regrettably, are familiar features of the backgrounds of many of your contemporaries including:

(a)parental alcohol and drug use;

(b)domestic violence and sexual abuse;

(c)parental separation;

(d)imprisonment of your father when you were 10;

(e)minimal educational achievement;

(f)early teenage parenthood; and

(g)family gang affiliations and involvement.

[10]      You have also engaged in the use of cannabis and methamphetamine from a young age including methamphetamine consumption at the time of the offending.

[11]I turn now to address the contents of the Advice to Courts Report.

Provision of Advice to Courts Report

[12]      The report writer noted that the current charges represent a substantial escalation in the seriousness of the offending and an additional risk that you pose to the community.

[13]      As to remorse, the report writer noted that you expressed regret but said that you appeared more focused on your current situation than on the consequences of your actions for your victims. I conclude that there is insufficient evidence of genuine remorse to warrant a reduction in the sentence on that ground.

[14]      The report also noted that while in prison, you would be able to engage in rehabilitative interventions in relation to your mental health, violence propensity, attitude and substance abuse. I accept that accessing such rehabilitative interventions is likely to reduce the risk of further offending and I would encourage you to do so.

[15]      The report writer also asked the Court to bring forward the end date of the existing Release on Conditions that expires on 31 July 2023. I do that and direct that the end date of the existing release conditions is 7 February 2023.

Section 27 reports

[16]      The s 27 reports confirmed the information about your background that had, in large part, been covered in the various psychiatric reports that were available to me when I gave the sentence indication. Some further information about the relationships between you and your siblings and your grandmother was also provided.

Crown submissions

[17]      Mr Manning, for the Crown, in his written submissions, says that the PAC report largely confirmed what was already noted in earlier reports and submitted it would not justify further reductions in the starting point.

Defence submissions

[18]      Mr Willis argued in  his  written  submissions  for  a  further  reduction  of  10 per cent beyond the end sentence set out in my sentence indication.

[19]      He acknowledged the need for a causative connection between background factors and the offending and that, when the offending is particularly serious, the relevance of such factors may be reduced.

[20]      Mr Willis referred me to the various psychiatric reports and submitted they were relevant. I accept that submission, however, I specifically referred to, and accepted at [31] of the sentencing indication, that you had the mental health issues that the psychiatrists had reported on and it was those issues, along with your youth, that led me to reduce the starting point of the sentence by 10 per cent or just over a year. No new information has been placed before the Court on psychiatric matters that would warrant an increase in the discount figure that I arrived at in the sentence indication in respect of those matters.

Outcome

[21]      I accept, as I did in the sentencing indication, that cultural and background factors can be relevant and may, along with your age, warrant a reduction in the starting point of the sentence. I also accept, that given the very serious nature of the offending, these matters have less weight than they might when imprisonment is not the inevitable outcome.

[22]      There is also some degree of overlap between some of the matters covered in the s 27 reports and the psychiatric reports, most significantly in respect of your methamphetamine use. The psychiatric evidence, as I noted in my sentencing indication, referred to the possibility that your psychotic state may have been

“substance induced”, in other words as a result of the consumption of methamphetamine. Many of the matters referred to in the psychiatric reports as being likely causes of your psychotic illness: your dysfunctional upbringing and personality; exposure to anti-social attitudes and peers; and your cannabis and methamphetamine use are the same matters that are covered in the s 27 report. I have concluded to give you a further reduction for these matters would be to double count these issues.

[23]      The second s 27 report notes your acknowledgement that you were using methamphetamine at the time of the offending. From the comments recorded in that report, it seems that you do not accept that drug consumption can alter your behaviour. That is unfortunate. If you continue to maintain that attitude, your ability to benefit from the rehabilitative interventions available to you in prison is likely to be significantly impaired.

[24]      My overall conclusion is that there is nothing in the new material presented to me today that warrants any increased reduction in sentence beyond what I set out in the sentencing indication.

[25]      I therefore confirm that, for the reasons set out in the sentencing indication, you are sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment with a 50 per cent non-parole period.

[26]You may stand down.

Churchman J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor’s Office, Napier Public Defence Service, Hastings