R v Richardson

[2012] NZHC 1465

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI-2011-076-001761 [2012] NZHC 1465

THE QUEEN

v

TIPI HEREWINI RICHARDSON

Hearing:         25 June 2012

Appearances: K D Cotton and C A O'Connor for Crown

W N P van Vuuren for Prisoner

Judgment:      25 June 2012

REMARKS ON SENTENCE OF CHISHOLM J

[1]      Tipi Richardson, you have pleaded guilty to male assaults female, assault with intent to injure and threatening to kill.  The Crown offered no evidence and you were discharged on another count of attempting to procure an abortion.  You have already been sentenced in the District Court to wilful damage and I understand that you were sentenced to 100 hours community work, which I will take into account because it relates to the same series of events.

[2]      On 29 October 2011 you were in bedroom with your then partner and your

10 month old child. Apparently you were woken by the child playing with your face and you became agitated and smacked the child on the hand.   This provoked a reaction from your partner, an argument developed and your partner went to remove the baby from the room.   You knew that she was pregnant at this time but you

punched her in the side of the stomach, flew into a rage and smashed items which, as

R V RICHARDSON HC TIM CRI-2011-076-001761 [25 June 2012]

far as I can gather, belonged to your former partner.  When she tried to intervene you threatened to kill her and punched her another couple of times on the side of the stomach.  She eventually curled into a ball to protect herself and you continued to attack her arms and legs.  While she was taken to hospital, fortunately she was not seriously injured.

[3]      You are fortunate also that your partner speaks on your behalf in terms of a sentence of imprisonment.  You will have heard me say to Mr van Vuuren that while prison is available here I am not going to adopt that course.  The main thing is that you need to get your life back on track, Mr Richardson.

[4]      You are only 19 years of age, I have read the probation officer’s report, I have noted your history and I have also noted, as Mr van Vuuren said, that there are two sides to this particular relationship in terms of provocation and violence.  As far as I can  see,  while  you  have resorted  to  anger on  previous  occasions  that  has  only resulted in damage to items.  This is the first time that you have retaliated physically against your partner and it is to your credit that you are not attempting to rely on your partner’s previous violence to try and moderate your responsibility on this occasion.

[5]      You  have  five  previous  convictions  for  wilful  damage,  you  also  have convictions for breaching community work and being unlawfully in an enclosed yard.   But, as Mr van Vuuren said, this is the first time you have been before the Court in relation to violence and let us hope that it is the last.

[6]      Clearly you have got a problem with anger and, as I have said, this, at least to some extent, is probably attributable to your background.  I do not need to go into that any further.  The probation officer believes that you are genuinely remorseful. In his assessment the prospects of re-offending are low.  A sentence of community work and supervision with conditions is recommended by the probation officer.

[7]      It is necessary for me to look at what we call aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to both the offending and to you personally.

[8]      As far as the aggravating features of the offending are concerned there was more than one attack here.  By the same token, however, it was really a continuation of a series of events.  I take into account that your partner was pregnant.  You knew that.  This was pretty cowardly.   I do not see any mitigating features as far as the offending is concerned.

[9]      As far as you are concerned personally, one aggravating feature is that you have previous convictions.   Mr Richardson, previous convictions never assist in a situation like this.  But in this case I am going to take into account that your previous convictions did not involve violence and I am going to effectively set them to one side.  As far as the mitigating factors are concerned, those are factors that make it less blameworthy.  There is your age; remorse; the fact that, as Mr van Vuuren put it, it is to your credit that you are looking for work; and finally, there is your guilty plea. But I need to take into account that that guilty plea did not come at the first available opportunity.

[10]     Now I turn to the actual sentence to be imposed.  Given that all this offending was in one sequence I am going to take a global approach.  I think Ms Cotton is right that the starting point for the offending as a whole must be somewhere between

12 and 15 months imprisonment.  I would adopt the lower mark of 12 months and that would equate with six months home detention.  The issue really is whether or not  you  should  receive  home  detention  or  community  work  with  supervision. Mr van Vuuren has spoken strongly against home detention.  I do not agree. Attacks on women, especially pregnant women, are not to be condoned.  As I have already said, they are cowardly and it does not matter if they are in a domestic situation.  In some ways it makes them worse.  So under those circumstances I am not prepared to impose a sentence that does not have at least a bit more bite to it than supervision.

[11]     If I start at six months home detention you are entitled to a 20% discount for your guilty plea and the other factors justify a further 10%.  I arrive at a sentence of home detention of four months.  I impose that sentence on the charge of assault with intent to injure and a concurrent sentence of four months home detention for male assaults female. You are convicted and discharged on the threatening to kill.

[12]     Before I go on to the conditions that should apply to the home detention, I should mention that I have also considered whether community work should be imposed.  Had it not been for the fact that you have already been sentenced to 100 hours community work in the District Court, I would have been imposing a sentence of community work (it would have been more than 100 hours).   But, in all the circumstances, I have decided not to add to the community work sentence that has already been imposed, especially because I am told that you are performing that sentence satisfactorily.  You have got to make every post a winning post from now on.  You are young.  You must get over your anger problem.  But you have plenty of potential, especially if you can get into work.

[13]     The conditions in relation to the home detention are that you are:

(a)      To reside at 45 Craigie Avenue, Timaru, during your sentence of home detention.

(b)Not to consume alcohol or illicit drugs during the sentence of home detention.

(c)      To   undertake   and   complete   the   South   Canterbury   Violence Intervention Project to the satisfaction of the course facilitator and your probation officer.

(d)To undertake and complete a parenting course to the satisfaction of your probation officer.

(e)      Your flatmate, Kyle Grace, is to move out before you begin your sentence of home detention.

[14]     I should add that you will be subject to the standard post release conditions for a period of six months following completion of the home detention.

Solicitors:

Gresson Dorman & Co, Timaru,  [email protected]

Heartland Law Limited, Timaru,  [email protected]