R v Orchard - [2017] NZHC 3015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI TERENGA PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2017-088-000071 [2017] NZHC 3015

THE QUEEN

v

PETER JOHN ORCHARD

Hearing: 6 December 2017

Counsel:

MB Smith for Crown
AB Fairley for Defendant

Judgment:

6 December 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei. AB Fairley, Whangarei.

R v ORCHARD [2017] NZHC 3015 [6 December 2017]

Introduction

[1] I begin by acknowledging the presence of your partner in the rear of the court. I grant the prosecution leave to withdraw charges 1, 4, 5 and 6.

[2] Mr Orchard, you appear for sentence in relation to five charges:

(a) Causing grievous bodily harm with intent;

(b) Breaching a protection order;

(c) Dangerous driving; and

(d) Two charges of assault.

[3] The lawyers agree I must impose a substantial term of imprisonment. You will now know that. The primary issue is: how long should your sentence be?

Facts

[4] On 6 January 2016 you were driving your family to Kerikeri. Your partner was in the front passenger seat; your three children in the back seat. They were then aged
6, 8 and 11. You were upset by a text message your partner had received. The exact nature of the message is not set out in the summary of facts, which instead refers to a message concerning allegations about you. But whatever its contents, you became very upset. You said “I don’t have anything to lose”. You made other like remarks.

[5] You then deliberately drove off the road into several road signs. You did not slow down. You then drove at three lamp posts. Before hitting the first of the three, you unclipped your partner’s seatbelt. And, you ensured the line of lamp posts was on your partner’s side of the car. You ran the first two lamp posts down. The third caused your car to flip, and to rest on its passenger’s side. Your partner was knocked unconscious. She had to be cut free.

[6] You picked up a knife and piece of rope. With them, you climbed a tree. Members of the public tried to stop you. You spat at them; you kicked another several times to the face, hence the charges of assault.

[7] You tied one end of the rope around your neck, and the other to a branch. You jumped. You fell approximately four metres. You were cut down, including by a Police officer. You referred to your family as being dead to you. You said you wished you were dead too.

[8] I pause here to commend the bravery of the Police officer and members of the public who came to your aid. They helped you despite your violence. And, they put your safety before their own.

[9] Your partner suffered bruising all over her body. Fortunately, she was not more seriously injured. Your children were physically unharmed.

[10] Your offending occurred while you were subject to a protection order in relation to your…

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 Orchard

Details

AGLC: R v Orchard [2017] NZHC 3015
Case: [2017] NZHC 3015
Decision Date: 6 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen versus Peter John Orchard was heard and decided on 6 December 2017. The defendant, Peter John Orchard, faced multiple charges including causing grievous bodily harm with intent, breaching a protection order, dangerous driving, and two charges of assault. The court needed to determine the appropriate term of imprisonment for these charges, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors involved. Orchard deliberately drove his car off the road and into lamp posts, targeting his partner who was in the car with him and their three children. His actions were extreme, violent, and deliberate, causing significant harm to his partner and creating a dangerous situation for his children. Orchard had a history of breaching protection orders and had a propensity for violence, particularly towards his partner.

The court found that Orchard's actions were highly aggravating due to the deliberate use of his car as a weapon, the vulnerability of his partner, the extreme nature of the violence, the targeting of his partner's head, and the physical harm caused to his partner. The court also noted Orchard's history of breaching protection orders and his propensity for violence. However, mitigating factors included Orchard's young age at the time of his first offence, his plea of guilty, and his mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol dependency stemming from a workplace accident in 2013. The court reduced the starting point of the sentence by 15% due to these mitigating factors but noted that Orchard's mental health issues also posed a danger to others. The court sentenced Orchard to six years and nine months’ imprisonment for grievous bodily harm with intent, 18 months’ imprisonment for breaching a protection order, three months’ imprisonment for dangerous driving, and three months’ imprisonment for the two assault charges, all terms to run concurrently.

The final orders of the court were that Orchard was to serve a total effective sentence of six years and nine months’ imprisonment, with a disqualification period of six months under s 85 of the Land Transport Act to commence upon his release from prison. The court acknowledged the bravery of the police and members of the public who intervened to prevent Orchard from taking his own life.

Orders