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 moment when you made those remarks.

[6]      It follows that this is a case of a minor confrontation getting out of hand then ending badly because a weapon was eventually used.

[7]      So far I have been talking about the features of the offence.  Turning to your personal circumstances, there are some important mitigating factors which the Court must take into account at sentencing:

(a)      First,  you were 20 at the time, and  you had had a most difficult childhood in what is clearly a rough neighbourhood.  Your father is a violent man, and both of your parents abuse drugs and/or alcohol.  It was perfectly apparent at trial that their behaviour has harmed both you and your younger sister, who gave evidence.  I fear for her future. It is also apparent that there was tension between the women in the family home at the time, having something to do with your mother’s behaviour.

(b)      Second,  there  is  persuasive  evidence  that  you  had  been  seriously attacked in 2008, which caused you to become reclusive and fearful.  I accept that you carried a knife for self-defence as a result of that incident.

(c)      Third, in the last year you had undertaken an Army Limited Service Volunteer course, passing with merit, and you seem to have been looking for work.

(d)      Fourth and very importantly, you have no previous convictions.  That is  quite  an  achievement  given  your  age  at  the  time,  and  the unfortunate family circumstances into which you were born.  It also means you are entitled to credit for previous good character,  and it is a strong indicator, one which I wish to draw to the attention of the Parole Board, that you have potential for rehabilitation.  It is most unfortunate that this should have happened at this potential turning point in your life as you approach adulthood.   But for this confrontation, you might have made something of yourself.

(e)      Finally,  parity of  treatment  with  your  co-offender,  Mr  Stark,  is  a factor.  He played the critical role in triggering the confrontation, and he was fully involved in the attack on Mr Hadfield.  He was sentenced to home detention for assault, presumably recognising that he knew nothing of the knife.

[8]      So those are the reasons, Mr Robinson, why I am not prepared to impose a minimum period longer than 10 years.

[9]      Having explained that, I want to acknowledge the victim, Aaron Hadfield, and his family.  I have read a victim impact statement from his partner, Kiri Hughes, who was also a witness at the trial.  His parents have chosen not to make a written statement.  It has been necessary to record Mr Hadfield’s role in the confrontation, in fairness to you.  You also had the right to run self-defence at trial.  But it is proper to acknowledge here that the trial process inevitably makes it harder for his family to process their grief.   I also want to endorse something that Ms Feltham said to the jury  at  trial:    this  argument  ought  to  have  ended  with  an  exchange  of  words. Mr Hadfield’s behaviour did not justify the attack which you and Mr Stark launched upon him.   The jury clearly agreed with that,  which may come as some small comfort to his family.

[10]     Mr Hadfield was in work as a scaffolder.  He was a hard worker and a fitness enthusiast who was clearly a good partner to Ms Hughes.  The evidence at trial suggested that he was very much a family man, and she has confirmed that in her statement.  She has moved out of Wellington to help her cope with his absence.  The two children of the family have been left fatherless.  The younger one, a son, is aged just two.  The sentence I have passed upon you is a very harsh one for a young man and a first offender. You will spend what ought to be one of the best decades of your life behind bars, and after that you will struggle to realise your potential.  But the impact upon Mr Hadfield’s family will be lifelong.

[11]     That is all I want to say, Mr Robinson.  Stand down.

Miller J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor’s Office, Wellington for Crown