R v Roker - [2017] NZHC 1637

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2017-012-000456 [2017] NZHC 1637

THE QUEEN

v

SHAAN ROKER

Hearing: 17 July 2017

Appearances:

R D Smith for Crown
A Stevens for Defendant

Judgment:

17 July 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GENDALL J

R v ROKER [2017] NZHC 1637 [17 July 2017]

[1] Mr Roker you can remain seated. I will ask you to stand in a moment.

[2] Shaan Roker, you appear for sentencing today on two charges to which you have pleaded guilty:

(a) A charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm under s 188(1) of the Crimes Act 1961, which carries with it a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

(b) A charge of male assaults female under s 194B of the Crimes Act

1961, which carries with it a maximum penalty of two years’

imprisonment.

[3] I propose first, to outline the facts relevant to your offending, Mr Roker, followed by a brief discussion of the relevant purposes and principles of sentencing. I will then determine the appropriate starting point for your offending, followed by an assessment of any uplifts or discounts which may be warranted by circumstances of your offending, or by circumstances personal to you.

[4] The charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm is clearly the more serious charge, and I take that as the lead offending in your case.

Factual Circumstances of the offending

[5] Mr Roker, you are known to both of your victims. The victim in respect of the male assaults female charge is your ex-partner, with whom you have two children. The victim in respect of the wounding charge is the father of your ex- partner and the grandfather of your two children.

[6] The charges arise out of events which occurred on 21 February 2017. Previously you had been living in Australia, where you are originally from. You had come to New Zealand only one week before the incidents in question, apparently to help your ex-partner with problems she had been having in her own life, including drug-related problems and an allegedly abusive former boyfriend.

[7] At 9:30am on the morning in question, you and the female victim were at a residential address where you were both planning to live. You were arguing about your alleged drug use. Mr Roker, you were asked to leave the address, and the victim began to remove some of your personal items from the house. During the course of the argument you struck the victim with your arm, making contact between your elbow and the victim’s head. This was then followed by a secondary strike to her head with an open hand.

[8] Later, at approximately 11:45 a.m. that morning the male victim, who was also living at that address, returned. You and the female victim were still arguing. He asked you to leave when he heard…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Roker and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NZHC 1637
Decision Date: 17 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shaan Roker was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and of male assaults female, and was sentenced in the High Court at Dunedin. The court heard that Roker had assaulted his ex-partner and her father with a machete, resulting in serious injury to the father, and bruising and swelling to the ex-partner. Roker pleaded guilty to the charges. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, accountability, and the interests of the victims. The starting point for the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm was 10 years’ imprisonment, with an uplift of three months for the male assaults female charge. The court then considered aggravating and mitigating factors relating to Roker, including his slight criminal history, expressions of remorse, and other mitigating factors such as ongoing health problems and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The court applied a discount of 15 per cent to the starting point, and a further 25 per cent credit for Roker’s guilty pleas. The final sentence was six years six months’ imprisonment for the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and three months’ imprisonment for the charge of male assaults female, to be served concurrently. There was to be no minimum period of imprisonment. The court also gave Roker a First Three Strikes warning, and made a final name suppression order as to the victims’ names and any identifying details. An emotional harm payment of $2000 was to be made by Roker to the victims within 20 working days of the sentencing.

Orders