R v Ormond - [2023] NZHC 2539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2022-020-866

[2023] NZHC 2539

THE KING

v

RYAN REREMOANA WILLIAM ORMOND HARLAND FREEMAN STERLING ORMOND

Hearing: 8 September 2023

Appearances:

M J R Blaschke for Crown

T M Cooper KC for Mr R Ormond A W Clarke for Mr H Ormond

Judgment:

8 September 2023

NOTES ON SENTENCING OF GRICE J

Introduction

[1] Mr Ryan Ormond, you appear for sentence today on a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1

[2] Mr Harland Ormond, you appear for sentence on charges of injuring with intent to injure,2 and attempting to pervert the course of justice.3

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1) — maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 189(2) — maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 117 — maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

R v ORMOND [2023] NZHC 2539 [8 September 2023]

[3] The offending relates to events that occurred in Māhia about 28 February 2022. It involved assaults on the victim, Mr Cameron Karangaroa. He has serious and permanent injuries as a result.

[4] You each played a part in the assaults so the background facts are the same. However, your roles were significantly different. I refer to you in the sentencing by your first names to avoid confusion.

[5] On 17 May this year, I provided a sentence indication in respect of both of you. You both, through your counsel, accepted that indication and pleaded guilty to the charges. So therefore, my remarks today lead on from that sentence indication.

[6]Mr Ryan Ormond, you accepted a sentence indication on the following basis:

(a)a starting point of nine years’ imprisonment;

(b)an uplift of one month for previous relevant conviction or convictions;

(c)a 15 per cent discount for a guilty plea;

(d)a five to seven-month discount for time on electronically monitored (EM) bail; and

(e)there were to be further adjustments granted in respect of relevant personal factors from the material which I now have before me.

[7]Mr Harland Ormond, you accepted a sentence indication with:

(a)a starting point for lead charge of injuring with intent to injure of one year and nine months’ imprisonment;

(b)an uplift of five months for a separate charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice;

(c)a 20 per cent discount for guilty plea; and

(d)further discount for youth and any other adjustments based on material which I now have before me today.

[8] I indicated in respect of you, Harland, that home detention appeared to be the least restrictive outcome available in the circumstances.

Background to the offending

[9] I outlined the factual background in some detail in the sentence indication. Counsel have again addressed me both for the Crown and defence on that background. The background is based on the summary of facts which has been agreed to.

[10] During the tangihanga for your father, who had passed away the day before, you assaulted Mr Karangaroa after he was disrespectful (that is…

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 Ormond

Details

AGLC: R v Ormond [2023] NZHC 2539
Case: [2023] NZHC 2539
Decision Date: 8 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Ryan Ormond and Harland Ormond appeared for sentencing following their guilty pleas to charges related to an assault on Mr Cameron Karangaroa during a tangihanga for their deceased father. Ryan Ormond was charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, while Harland Ormond faced charges of injuring with intent to injure and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The court heard that the assault was severe, leaving Mr Karangaroa with significant and permanent injuries.

The legal issues for the court to decide included determining appropriate starting points for sentencing based on the nature of the offences, the culpability of the defendants, and the applicability of various discounts for factors such as guilty pleas, personal circumstances, remorse, and time spent on bail. The court also had to balance these considerations against the need to hold the defendants accountable for their actions and to deter future offending.

The court followed a two-step sentencing approach, first calculating a starting point based on the seriousness of the offending and then adjusting this based on personal factors and discounts. For Ryan Ormond, the court found a starting point of nine years' imprisonment appropriate, given the extreme violence and serious injury inflicted. After applying discounts for his guilty plea, time on electronically monitored bail, and personal circumstances, the final sentence was three years and six months' imprisonment. Harland Ormond's starting point was two years and two months' imprisonment, which was reduced to ten months' home detention after considering his guilty plea, youth, and remorse.

The court emphasized the importance of balancing the defendants' personal circumstances and culpability with the need to address the gravity of the offending and its impact on the victim. The final sentences reflect this balance, with Ryan Ormond receiving a term of imprisonment and Harland Ormond being sentenced to home detention, which the court deemed the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders