[1] Mr Poole, you appear today for sentencing on charges of aggravated burglary, injuring with intent to injure and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

[2] Mr Perry, you appear for sentence on charges of aggravated burglary, injuring with intent to injure, reckless discharge of a firearm and arson.

[3] Mr Murphy, you appear for sentence today on charges of attempted murder, aggravated burglary, injuring with intent to injure, burglary (x2), arson and reckless discharge of a firearm.

[4] You were each found guilty of those charges following a jury trial in

February this year.

Aggravated burglary/Injuring with intent to injure

[5] All three of you were found guilty on the charges of aggravated burglary and injuring with intent to injure. I will therefore consider the appropriate sentence in respect of those convictions first.

Facts

[6] The aggravated burglary and injuring with intent to injure charges arose out of what was referred to at trial as the “home invasion” of the first victim’s home in Tauranga on 17 May 2012.

[7] The victim of that incident was once on friendly terms with Mr Poole. They lived on the same street and Mr Poole lent him money. Tensions mounted, however, over the victim’s failure to repay the loan. Further, the victim formed a relationship with Mr Poole’s ex-girlfriend, which caused considerable distress to Mr Poole. The Crown prosecutor described Mr Poole at trial as a “possessive, brooding, jilted lover” who was consumed by hatred for the victim and thoughts of revenge. In my view such a description was amply supported by the evidence, including in particular the text messages sent by Mr Poole during the relevant period. The evidence suggests that Mr Poole’s anger and hostility towards the victim, due to his

relationship with Mr Poole’s ex-girlfriend, was a factor that strongly contributed to his decision to organise an attack on him. Retribution for the victim’s failure to repay the debt was also a contributing factor.

[8] Mr Poole procured Mr Perry, whom he knew from prison, and Mr Perry’s flatmate, Mr Murphy, to undertake the attack. After first meeting at Mr Poole’s house, they entered the victim’s house disguised in balaclavas and armed with a wooden pole and imitation pistol. The victim was struck numerous times around his face and body with the pole. He later required surgery for a fractured cheekbone. Mr Perry and Mr Murphy took his wallet and cash…

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 Poole

Details

AGLC: R v Poole [2014] NZHC 1126
Case: [2014] NZHC 1126
Decision Date: 22 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved the sentencing of three individuals, Mr Poole, Mr Perry, and Mr Murphy, for various criminal offences. The defendants were found guilty following a jury trial of charges including aggravated burglary, injuring with intent to injure, attempted murder, reckless discharge of a firearm, arson, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The court considered each defendant's personal circumstances and the relevant case law in determining the appropriate sentences. The court found that all three defendants were equally culpable for the aggravated burglary and injuring with intent to injure charges, with the sentences for these charges to be imposed concurrently. The court also determined that the attempted murder, reckless discharge of a firearm, and arson charges should be served cumulatively for Mr Murphy, while Mr Perry's sentences for aggravated burglary, injuring with intent to injure, and arson should be served concurrently, with the reckless discharge of a firearm charge served cumulatively. For Mr Poole, the sentences for aggravated burglary, injuring with intent to injure, and attempting to pervert the course of justice were to be served concurrently, with the latter charge served cumulatively. The court imposed minimum periods of imprisonment for Mr Murphy and Mr Perry, but not for Mr Poole.

The final sentences were as follows: Mr Poole received a total term of nine years' imprisonment for aggravated burglary, injuring with intent to injure, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. Mr Perry received a total term of 11 years and six months' imprisonment for aggravated burglary, injuring with intent to injure, recklessly discharging a firearm, and arson. Mr Murphy received a total term of 17 years' imprisonment for attempted murder, aggravated burglary, injuring with intent to injure, recklessly discharging a firearm, arson, and burglary, with a minimum period of imprisonment of nine years. All sentences were to be served concurrently with any existing sentences.

Orders