R v Ormsby - [2016] NZHC 2220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-092-13432 [2016] NZHC 2220

THE QUEEN

v

WIREMU ORMSBY

Hearing: 20 September 2016

Appearances:

Y V Yelavich for Crown
H B Leabourn for Defendant

Sentence:

20 September 2016

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v ORMSBY [2016] NZHC 2220 [20 September 2016]

[1] Mr Ormsby, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter. That charge carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Background

[2] The charge was laid after an incident that occurred on the afternoon of

18 July 2015. At that time your elder brother was living in a boarding house in South Auckland. On the afternoon of 18 July 2015 he was not present at the address, but your younger 16 year old brother was there. Other persons were also in the room.

[3] During the course of the afternoon, the people in the house were visited by the victim in this case. He visited and began talking to the people in the address. It appears that they took exception to the way in which he was acting and things he was saying. He led them to believe that he had earlier been involved in an incident involving violence, and there is a suggestion that a cut that was later found on his lip was already there when he arrived at the address.

[4] Your younger brother took exception to the presence of the victim. He sent you a text message saying words to the effect that there is a “tuff drunk guy here”. A short text message exchange then occurred, during which you made it clear that you were going to come to the address. You asked directions, and you were told where to go and how many people were in the room. You then went to the address with a metal bar concealed in your clothing. The summary of facts refers to a wooden bat or metal bar, but your counsel confirms today that I can proceed on the basis that it was a metal bar as you told the probation officer who prepared the pre-sentence report.

[5] Virtually as soon as you arrived in the room you took out the metal bar and attacked the victim about his head. It is clear from the pathologist’s report that you struck him several blows about the head. This caused him to fall to the ground. You immediately left the room with your brother. You were not to know what would occur shortly after you left.

[6] Shortly after you left the room, the victim tried to stand up. In doing so he fell against another person in the room who was an associate of yours. The victim and the other person then fell to the floor. At that point your associate began to strangle the victim, and he did so until the victim lost consciousness. Shortly after that, he died.

[7] The pathologist’s report that was prepared following the post-mortem makes it clear…

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 Ormsby

Details

AGLC: R v Ormsby [2016] NZHC 2220
Case: [2016] NZHC 2220
Decision Date: 20 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ormsby, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, involved the sentencing of Wiremu Ormsby, who had pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter. The incident leading to the charge occurred on 18 July 2015, where Ormsby attacked the victim with a metal bar, causing injuries that contributed to the victim's death. The court had to determine the appropriate length of sentence considering factors such as the nature of the crime, the impact on the victim's family, and Ormsby's prior criminal history.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering factors such as premeditation, the use of a weapon, and the infliction of serious injury. Additionally, the court had to assess aggravating and mitigating factors personal to Ormsby, such as his previous convictions for violent offending and his recent efforts to turn his life around. The court also had to decide on an appropriate minimum term of imprisonment to ensure adequate denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community.

In delivering the sentencing remarks, Justice Lang determined that an appropriate starting point for the sentence was 11 years and 6 months imprisonment, increased by 18 months to reflect the victim's death. Aggravating factors, such as Ormsby's history of violent offending, led to an additional three-month uplift. Mitigating factors, including Ormsby's recent positive changes in life and limited remorse, resulted in a three-month discount. The court also considered Ormsby's early guilty plea, leading to a further discount of 2 years and 11 months. Ultimately, Ormsby was sentenced to 8 years and 7 months imprisonment with a minimum term of 4 years and 4 months before eligibility for parole.

In conclusion, the court imposed a sentence of 8 years and 7 months imprisonment for the charge of manslaughter, with a minimum term of 4 years and 4 months before parole eligibility. The sentence reflects the seriousness of the crime, the impact on the victim's family, and the need to hold Ormsby accountable for his actions.

Orders