R v Parish - [2012] NZHC 495

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 125 OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 1995, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO
11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE SEE THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2011-009-000153 [2012] NZHC 495

REGINA

v

JASON PARISH

Appearances: MAV Raj and T J Mackenzie for Crown
S Shamy for Prisoner

Judgment: 21 March 2012

SENTENCE OF HON JUSTICE FRENCH

[1] Jason Parish, following pleas of guilty, you appear for sentence this afternoon on five counts:

i) injuring with intent to injure;

ii) blackmail;

iii) threatening grievous bodily harm;

iv) two charges of breaching a protection order.

R V PARISH HC CHCH CRI-2011-009-000153 [21 March 2012]

[2] The injuring with intent to injure charge was recently transferred to this Court from the District Court, and the Judge in that jurisdiction asked that it be sent to the High Court so you could be sentenced on that charge today with the other four charges that were originally in this Court.

Facts of the offending

[3] The victim in all offences was your former partner. Your relationship began about two months before you went to prison on an unrelated matter. The victim visited you in prison on 12 August 2007. According to the police summary of facts, the purpose of her visit was to tell you she was ending the relationship. You say that in the course of doing that, she indicated she was seeing another person and had possibly given you a sexually transmitted disease. Whatever it was that was said, it is clear you reacted strongly. Despite the presence of the prison guards, you grabbed her by her thighs and began punching her in the face with a closed fist. You continued hitting her in the face, causing a gash on her nose and chipping several of her teeth. The attack continued until another prisoner in the visiting room intervened and physically pulled you off the victim.

[4] As a result of this assault, the victim had to be admitted to hospital, and received stitches to her face. She also had several chipped teeth and bruises around her face and neck.

[5] Despite this incident, the two of you briefly reconciled following your release, but it did not last. She moved to Auckland, she says in an attempt to get away from you because she no longer wanted any contact.

[6] On 22 July 2010 she obtained a domestic protection order against you from the Auckland Family Court.

[7] You wanted to get back together again, and between 29 September 2010 and

13 November 2010 you sent a series of approximately 70 text messages. Some of these earlier messages were affectionate, and the victim responded. However, things turned nasty and the texts became abusive and threatening. At one point you told the

victim you had a video of the two of you having sex. She did not know about any video, and indeed it is doubtful whether such…

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 Parish

Details

AGLC: R v Parish [2012] NZHC 495
Case: [2012] NZHC 495
Decision Date: 21 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Jason Parish, the defendant was convicted on multiple counts including injuring with intent to injure, blackmail, threatening grievous bodily harm, and breaching a protection order. The victim, the defendant's former partner, was subjected to severe physical and psychological abuse, including a violent assault in prison and a series of threatening text messages following her obtaining of a domestic protection order. The court considered the defendant's extensive criminal history, his mental health issues, and the impact of his offending on the victim in determining the appropriate sentence.

The legal issues before the court involved applying the principles and purposes of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002, particularly focusing on accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and the interests of the victim. The court had to determine an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the seriousness of the offences and the defendant's culpability, and then adjust this starting point based on personal factors relating to the defendant. The court also had to decide whether the defendant was eligible for home detention and whether suppression of the victim's identity was warranted.

The court began by establishing a starting point of three years' imprisonment, considering the seriousness of the offences and the defendant's criminal history. It then made adjustments based on factors such as the defendant's offending occurring while on bail or in prison, and his extensive criminal record, leading to an upward adjustment of six months. Mitigating factors, including the defendant's eight months on electronically monitored bail and his guilty pleas, resulted in a reduction of 16 months in total. Consequently, the court sentenced the defendant to two years and three months' imprisonment for injuring with intent to injure, one year for blackmail, six months for threatening grievous bodily harm, and ten months for each breach of the protection order, all to run concurrently. The court also made an order to suppress the victim's identity to protect her from potential harm.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment for the charge of injuring with intent to injure, one year for blackmail, six months for threatening grievous bodily harm, and ten months for each breach of the protection order, all sentences to run concurrently. Additionally, the court ordered the suppression of the victim's identity to prevent potential harm to her.

Orders