R v Robinson - [2013] NZHC 961

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-032-526 [2013] NZHC 961

THE QUEEN

v

SHAYD ROBINSON

Hearing: 3 May 2013

Counsel: P K Feltham and I R Murray for Crown
I M Antunovic and C L Parkin for Prisoner

Sentencing: 3 May 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF MILLER J

[1] Mr Robinson, the jury found you guilty of murder earlier this week. A conviction has been entered already. You are now sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years.

[2] It is usual when sentencing someone to imprisonment to delay for pre- sentence reports and written submissions from counsel. I have not done that in your case, because it could make no difference. The law requires that you be sentenced to life imprisonment, and life imprisonment carries a minimum period of not less than
10 years. There are truly exceptional cases in which the Court is permitted to impose a sentence less than life, but this is not one of them. And although I might impose a
longer minimum period of imprisonment, it would not be just to do so in your case.

R v ROBINSON HC WN CRI-2012-032-526 [3 May 2013]

[3] To explain briefly, at sentencing the seriousness of the crime has to be measured against other murders. All murders are obviously brutal, and devastating for the surviving victims. Relative to other murders this particular crime had no serious aggravating features. On the other hand, there were some mitigating features. Notably, the incident began when Mr Hadfield turned into Logie Street at speed, apparently without indicating. His driving was certainly aggressive. Your co- offender, William Stark, shouted abuse at him. Apparently taking the view that he had the right of way, Mr Hadfield stopped and responded in kind. Only then did you join in this confrontation.

[4] You attacked Mr Hadfield and Mr Stark joined in. I do not accept that you acted in self-defence initially. I do accept that after you began punching him he grabbed your hoody, and I accept that you probably stabbed him to make him let go. However, this cannot be characterised as self-defence, in my opinion. He was not attacking you. And if he was, the use of a weapon was grossly excessive.

[5] I do not think you intended to kill Mr Hadfield. The better view of the evidence is that you were reckless about whether you killed him or not. In saying that I do not overlook what you said immediately after the stabbing; you told him that was what he got for messing with you, and you claimed that the blood on the knife tasted good. I am not prepared to read much into those dramatic statements. You did not begin this confrontation, and everything happened very quickly. You stabbed him once, probably to make him let go as I have said, then immediately retreated. I think that, having escaped as you saw it, you were mouthing off in the heat of the…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: R v Robinson [2013] NZHC 961
Case: [2013] NZHC 961
Decision Date: 3 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, the case of the Queen versus Shayd Robinson was heard on 3 May 2013. Robinson was found guilty of murder by a jury and was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Robinson, given his conviction for murder, and to weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors in this particular case.

The court considered the severity of the crime against other murders, noting that while all murders are inherently brutal and devastating, this particular crime did not exhibit any serious aggravating features. The court acknowledged that the incident began with aggressive driving and verbal abuse by the victim, Mr. Hadfield, and that Robinson and his co-offender, William Stark, joined in the confrontation. Although the court did not accept Robinson's claim of self-defence, it did find that Robinson did not initially intend to kill Mr. Hadfield, but rather acted recklessly. The court also took into account Robinson's personal circumstances, including his difficult upbringing, a history of being a victim of serious assault, his completion of an Army Limited Service Volunteer course, and his lack of previous convictions. These mitigating factors, along with the need for parity with his co-offender's sentence, led the court to determine that a minimum period of 10 years was appropriate.

Robinson was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 10 years. The court emphasized the gravity of the impact on the victim's family, acknowledging the lifelong consequences for them. The court also expressed regret that this incident occurred at a potentially pivotal moment in Robinson's life, as he was approaching adulthood and showed potential for rehabilitation.

Orders