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…

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 Richardson

Details

AGLC: R v Richardson [2012] NZHC 1465
Case: [2012] NZHC 1465
Decision Date: 25 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tipi Herewini Richardson, a 19-year-old man, was convicted of male assaults female, assault with intent to injure, and threatening to kill. He was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand at Timaru, presided over by His Honour Justice Chisholm. The Crown did not present any evidence, and Richardson was discharged on another count of attempting to procure an abortion. The court took into account a previous sentence of 100 hours of community work, imposed by the District Court, for wilful damage related to the same series of events.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Richardson, considering the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as personal mitigating and aggravating factors. The legal issues involved weighing the severity of the attacks against Richardson's personal background, criminal history, and potential for rehabilitation. The court also considered the probation officer's recommendation of community work and supervision with conditions.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Chisholm noted that while Richardson had a history of anger issues and previous convictions for wilful damage, this was the first instance of physical retaliation against his partner. The court found that Richardson showed genuine remorse, and the probation officer believed that the risk of reoffending was low. However, the judge considered the attacks on his pregnant partner to be cowardly and not condoned, even in a domestic setting. The court imposed a sentence of four months of home detention, with a 20% discount for the guilty plea and a further 10% discount for other mitigating factors. The court also imposed a concurrent sentence of four months home detention for the male assaults female charge. The court decided not to impose additional community work, as Richardson was already serving a sentence for 100 hours of community work in the District Court. The court set conditions for the home detention, including residence at a specified address, abstaining from alcohol and drugs, and completing the South Canterbury Violence Intervention Project and a parenting course.

The court's final orders included the imposition of four months of home detention, with the specified conditions, and a period of standard post-release conditions for six months following the completion of the home detention.

Orders