R v Q - [2014] NZHC 550

ORDER PERMANENTLY PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT (Q) AND
CO-DEFENDANT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CRI-2013-090-005262 [2014] NZHC 550

THE QUEEN

v

Q

Hearing: 21 March 2014

Appearances: A J F Perkins for Crown
R Mansfield for Q Sentence: 21 March 2014
SENTENCE OF WINKELMANN J [and name suppression judgment]

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland

R v Q [2014] NZHC 550 [21 March 2014]

[1] [Q] you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to assaulting Stephen Dudley. Although the maximum sentence for that charge is one years’ imprisonment the law is that a sentence of home detention or imprisonment cannot be imposed on you because of your age. The issue for me today is whether I sentence you to community work, or alternatively discharge you without conviction. Because of your age I am going to tell you from the beginning that I have decided to discharge you without conviction. But I want you to listen carefully to what I say because it has an important message for you as to how I have reached the decision that I have. The first thing I have had to consider is of course what you did.

[2] You and your brother and the victim, Stephen Dudley, were students of the same high school in West Auckland. You and Stephen were 15 years’ old at the time and were in the same rugby team. The team was close-knit, consisting mainly of students who had also attended the same Intermediate School. You knew your teammates well, including Stephen.

[3] On the day, your team had come together for a pre-season practice. Prior to training, a fellow teammate had been making fun of and joking around with Stephen. You joined in. Stephen became offended at what was said, and a fight almost broke out between the two of you and mutual taunts were exchanged. Your teammates intervened and prevented things from escalating further. The team practice then proceeded without any further incident.

[4] After practice ended, Stephen picked up his schoolbag and rugby gear and turned to go home. However it seems that some of your teammates wanted to see a fight and someone called out (it was not you) to Stephen to come back. He did. Some people got out cellphones to film a fight and you say you felt pressure to fight. You ignored the members of the team who were trying to stop the fight, and walked to the centre of the field where Stephen met you.

[5] Meanwhile, your 17 year old brother had arrived to pick you up after practice. Someone told him you were about to be in a fight. He ran over to where Stephen was standing. While Stephen was distracted your brother struck him on the

neck with a swinging right arm. Stephen hunched over, and you and your brother punched him several times in the torso. Stephen did not throw a punch. I say that because we have referred…

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 Q

Details

AGLC: R v Q [2014] NZHC 550
Case: [2014] NZHC 550
Decision Date: 21 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendant, Q, was sentenced for assaulting Stephen Dudley, a fellow student and rugby team member. Q pleaded guilty to the assault but was discharged without conviction due to his age, as a sentence of home detention or imprisonment could not be imposed. The court had to decide whether to sentence Q to community work or discharge him without conviction. The judge considered Q's age, good character, lack of previous offending, remorse, and the impact of the assault on Stephen's death, which was due to an undiagnosed heart condition. The judge decided to discharge Q without conviction, emphasizing the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration for young offenders. The court also granted permanent name suppression for Q to protect his prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The judge considered the potential for extreme hardship if Q's name were published, as well as the rights of young people under international conventions to have their need for rehabilitation and reintegration respected through the criminal justice system.

Orders