R v Rodgers - [2022] NZHC 1942

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2021-054-000020

CRI-2021-054-001836 [2022] NZHC 1942

THE QUEEN

v

SHARRAS TYSON RODGERS

Sentencing: 8 August 2022

Counsel:

B D Vanderkolk for the Crown J Younger for Mr Rodgers

Sentencing Notes:

8 August 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF GWYN J

Introduction

[1] Mr Rodgers, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated assault1 and one charge of accessory after the fact.2

[2] In sentencing you today, I apply a law called the Sentencing Act 2002, which sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing. The purpose of sentencing in your case is to hold you accountable for the harm you have caused through your offending; to promote a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgment of, that harm; to denounce and deter the criminal conduct; to protect the community; and to assist in

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 192(1)(a) carries a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
2 Sections 312 and 71 carry a maximum penalty of three years and six months’ imprisonment.

R v RODGERS [2022] NZHC 1942 [8 August 2022]

your rehabilitation and reintegration into society.3 What that means in practice is that I have to look at the whole situation and do what I can to mark what you have done, but also to acknowledge who you are and your particular circumstances and background.

[3] In sentencing you, I will first say something about your offending, explain your personal circumstances, and set out counsel’s submissions. I will then calculate a sentence by adopting a two-step approach: first, I set a starting point based on the offences you are charged with; and second, I will consider whether to apply any increases (uplifts) and discounts to reflect your personal aggravating and mitigating factors.

[4] Because sentencing is a public process, I have to talk about the detail of what happened.

The offending

Accessory after the fact

[5] At about 7.30 pm on Thursday 31 December 2020, you were driving to Palmerston North with Mr Kovaleski in the passenger seat and two women in the back seat. You were travelling on Tennent Drive at a speed of 30 kmph. The speed limit on that section of the road is 100 kmph. Because of your slow speed, the victims’ vehicle approached and then overtook your vehicle.

[6] As well as the driver and the driver’s partner, their two young children, aged one and two years’ old, were in the back seat of the victim’s car. As the victims’ vehicle was overtaking your vehicle, the victims recognised you because you are personally known to them.

[7] A short while later, you accelerated heavily so that you were tailgating the victims’ vehicle. As your vehicle got to within one to two metres of the victims’ vehicle, Mr Kovaleski, from the passenger seat, leant out the window so that his whole upper body was outside the vehicle. He pointed a firearm in the direction of…

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 Rodgers

Details

AGLC: R v Rodgers [2022] NZHC 1942
Case: [2022] NZHC 1942
Decision Date: 8 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Sharras Tyson Rodgers, pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated assault and one charge of being an accessory after the fact to a serious crime. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Palmerston North Registry. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for Rodgers, taking into account the nature and seriousness of the crimes, as well as any relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.

The legal issues the court had to decide included the appropriate starting point for sentencing, whether to impose any increases or discounts based on aggravating or mitigating factors, and whether to impose any release conditions upon the defendant's release from prison. The court had to consider the defendant's criminal history, his age at the time of the offending, his remorse and guilty pleas, his epilepsy and drug addiction issues, and his potential for rehabilitation.

The court decided that a starting point of 10 months' imprisonment was appropriate for the charge of being an accessory after the fact, and that this should be increased by six months for the two charges of aggravated assault. The court then applied a series of discounts to the defendant's sentence, including a 25% discount for his guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity, a 5% discount for his expression of remorse, and a 20% discount for his personal circumstances, including his young age, his epilepsy, and his drug addiction issues. The result was an end sentence of eight months' imprisonment, which was credited as time served, meaning that the defendant would be released from prison immediately.

The court also ordered the defendant to pay $3,187.75 in reparation payments to his victims, but remitted the remainder of his outstanding court fines. The court decided not to impose any release conditions upon the defendant's release from prison, as it was considered that doing so might impede his rehabilitation and increase the risk of re-offending.

Orders