[1] Mr Tyrone Palmer, you appear for sentence today on one charge of manslaughter, that you assaulted Matthew Coley and thereby caused his death. You may remain seated, until I ask you to stand.

[2] I do not want to leave you in unnecessary doubt, so I will tell you now that a custodial sentence will be imposed. But the term of that has been affected and influenced by what I have heard in court today, hence the adjournment before I returned a few minutes ago.

[3] I want to say that I have been much assisted by the submissions for the
Crown by Mr Donnelly, and for you by Mr Young and Mr Williamson. They are measured and appropriate, and have been helpful to the Court, and considerably so.

R v PALMER [2016] NZHC 1962 [22 August 2016]

[4] I also want to acknowledge the statements by Mr and Mrs Coley and by Matthew sister, and for his brother. They are important parts of sentencing, as they disclose a sense of profound loss, but a hope that something will come of this for you and for other young people in particular.

[5] The Summary of Facts is not in dispute. On Friday 8 April this year, you and some companions were socialising in Invercargill. You consumed alcohol, together with a half tab of LSD or Lysergide and a small amount of Cannabis.

[6] Later, you went into town with some young people. In the early hours of

Saturday morning, you saw another man speaking with Mr Coley.

[7] You and your group approached this man and one of the young women in your group had an altercation with him. He walked away but you and others followed and confronted him, and you took off your sweatshirt and ran after him. This man was spoken with later and said you acted very aggressively.

[8] Sometime later you became involved in a discussion with Mr Coley, who it is accepted was intoxicated, but at all times was neither aggressive nor threatening.

[9] The discussion went on for about 10 minutes before he walked off down

Dee Street.

[10] At about 1.45am, Mr Coley was walking away from the Barluca Night Club in Dee Street and became involved in an argument with some of the young women.

[11] He then left the area and walked south on Dee Street. He was followed by the young women from your group who again confronted him outside the Esk Street Night n Day Store.

[12] You were outside the Store and became involved in the argument. You went into the entranceway of the Store and continued to argue with him.

[13] Mr Coley did not appear to be confrontational…

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 Palmer

Details

AGLC: R v Palmer [2016] NZHC 1962
Case: [2016] NZHC 1962
Decision Date: 22 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand at Invercargill, the court presided over by His Honour Justice Nicholas Davidson heard the sentencing of Tyrone John Palmer for the manslaughter of Matthew Coley. Palmer was convicted of one count of manslaughter following a single punch to Coley's head, which caused fatal injuries. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for Palmer, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing as set out in sections 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002. This involved considering the need to hold Palmer accountable for the harm caused, to promote a sense of responsibility and acknowledgment of the harm done, and to denounce Palmer's conduct and deter both him and others from committing similar offences.

Justice Davidson began by setting the starting point for sentencing, taking into account the gravity of the offending and the degree of Palmer's culpability. The court considered the various aggravating factors present in the case, including the attack to the head, the serious level of violence, the serious harm caused, the unprovoked nature of the attack, and the vulnerability of the victim. The court found that the appropriate starting point for sentencing was four years imprisonment.

After considering the mitigating factors, the court concluded that a 20% discount should be applied to the starting point to reflect Palmer's age at the time of the offending. An additional 5% discount was allowed for Palmer's remorse and good character, and a 25% discount for his guilty plea. After applying these discounts, the court arrived at a sentence of 22 months imprisonment. However, Justice Davidson emphasised that the primary purposes of sentencing in this case were deterrence and denunciation, and that a sentence of home detention would not be appropriate. The court recognised the inherent risks of imprisonment for Palmer, but also acknowledged the support he had from his family and the opportunities available to him upon his release.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Palmer to 22 months imprisonment for the manslaughter of Matthew Coley. The court emphasised the need to deter and denounce such conduct, while also recognising the risks of imprisonment for a young offender such as Palmer. The court encouraged the parties to consider the possibility of entering into a restorative justice programme for the sake of Coley's family.

Orders