R v P - [2023] NZHC 842

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PROHIBITED BY S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2022-409-71

[2023] NZHC 842

THE KING

v

P

Hearing: 19 April 2023

Appearances:

A L Mills for the Crown

M E Rout and M R Rout for the Defendant

Judgment:

19 April 2023

SENTENCING REMARKS OF HARLAND J

Introduction

[1] [P], you appear before the Court for sentence, having pleaded guilty to a charge of assault with intent to injure Jared Little. The maximum penalty for this offence is a term of three years’ imprisonment. The issue for me in sentencing you today is whether I should impose a short term of imprisonment or something less than that.

[2] There is a process I must follow in sentencing you. I will first outline the facts to which you have pleaded guilty. I must then consider the appropriate starting point

R v P [2023] NZHC 842 [19 April 2023]

for your sentence, what that should be, bearing in mind the purposes and principles of sentencing that are set out in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002. After that, I will consider matters personal to you which might justify a deduction from the starting point. I will consider all of these matters before I reach my final view about what your end sentence should be. And, after that, I will consider your application for permanent name suppression.

Facts

[3]So, first, dealing with the facts.

[4] Tragically, on 20 October 2019, Jared Little was stabbed to death by Thomas Ellery. Mr Little was your eldest daughter’s former partner and Mr Ellery was her current partner. Mr Ellery and Mr Little did not know each other. However, you and Mr Little did. You told the probation officer who prepared a report for the Court that you and Mr Little became friends and your friendship continued after your daughter and his relationship ended.

[5] On 7 October 2019, a brick was thrown through the bedroom window at your daughter’s address when she and Mr Ellery were asleep in bed. The windows of a van belonging to Mr Ellery were also smashed. During this time, Mr Little had been attempting to get back together with your daughter, however she did not want to get back together with him. Your daughter and Mr Ellery believed that Mr Little was responsible for causing the damage to the window and van. They wanted to find him and pay him back for this. Your daughter spoke to other people to try to find out where Mr Little was staying. Both she and Mr Ellery visited a house he was at on 10 October 2019, but they were not able to find him there.

[6] At 8.42 pm on Saturday 12 October 2019, you sent a Facebook message to your daughter stating “get Jared at Steve place he needs…

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 P

Details

AGLC: R v P [2023] NZHC 842
Case: [2023] NZHC 842
Decision Date: 19 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case R v P, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, revolves around the sentencing of [P], who pleaded guilty to a charge of assault with intent to injure Jared Little. The court had to determine whether [P] should be given a short-term imprisonment or an alternative penalty. The facts revealed that [P] sent messages to their daughter encouraging her to assault Jared Little, who was subsequently stabbed to death by another individual. Although [P] did not physically participate in the assault, their encouragement was considered significant in the context of the sentencing. The court considered [P]'s personal circumstances, including intellectual and cognitive deficits, mental health difficulties, and history of alcohol abuse, which contributed to their poor decision-making. The court decided on a sentence of supervision for 12 months and community detention for four months, aiming to address the need for deterrence and denunciation.

In addition to the sentencing, the court had to decide on [P]'s application for permanent suppression of their name. The court evaluated the potential impact of publication on [P] and their youngest son. While [P]'s mental health issues and susceptibility to panic attacks suggested that publication would likely cause them distress, the court did not find the hardship to be at the "extreme" level required for suppression. However, the court found that publication would cause extreme hardship to [P]'s son, who has a history of PTSD and vulnerability. Considering the competing interests, the court decided to grant permanent name suppression for [P], focusing on the impact on their son and [P]'s limited involvement in the offence.

Orders