R v Rowles - [2015] NZHC 2042

NOTE: PUBLICATION RESTRICTIONS EXIST IN RELATION TO MR ROWLES' CO-ACCUSED. REFER PARAGRAPH [40] OF THIS JUDGMENT. ANY PUBLICATION OF, OR REPORTING ON, THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH THOSE RESTRICTIONS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2015-025-876 [2015] NZHC 2042

THE QUEEN

v

LEON TERENCE ROWLES

Hearing: 26 August 2015

Appearances:

M-J Thomas for the Crown
F Guy Kidd for the Defendant

Sentenced:

26 August 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MANDER J

[1] Mr Rowles, I am now proceeding to sentence you. You may remain seated until the conclusion of my sentencing remarks.

[2] Leon Terence Rowles, you are for sentence this morning for causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Kahu Vincent with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. That charge carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment.

[3] You have been given a three strikes warning by Justice Davidson on the 29th of July when you entered your plea. On that day, the summary of facts were read to the Court, but it is necessary for me to traverse the factual basis upon which I
proceed to sentence you.

R v LEON TERENCE ROWLES [2015] NZHC 2042 [26 August 2015]

Facts

[4] In the early hours of 9 May this year, you and your associate entered a “Night’n’Day” convenience store in Wanaka. The events that unfolded were captured on CCTV.

[5] In the store at the time was Mr Vincent. He was doing no harm, and indeed engaged you in friendly conversation. Quite what was the trigger for you and your associate to attack Mr Vincent is not clear. However what is clear is that the attack was entirely unprovoked. At some stage, your associate, while crouching down to uplift an item, lost his balance. It appears you may have falsely indicated some involvement by Mr Vincent, as you can be seen on the CCTV footage pointing him out to your associate.

[6] In any event, the two of you can be seen confronting Mr Vincent, and, despite his protestations, he is punched by your associate. That triggers what can only be described as a brutal and unrelenting assault on him, in which you fully participated.

[7] Early in the attack, you punched Mr Vincent before holding him around the arms and shoulders while your associate delivered punches to his face and head. You too delivered blows with your hands and feet. Your involvement was such that in the course of the attack, you gestured to another customer to go away, and while your associate had Mr Vincent in a headlock, you went to check to see if anyone else was outside the shop. You can then be seen returning and rejoining the attack, kicking Mr Vincent, who was occupied trying to protect himself from your associate. You delivered a series of punches and an elbow strike while Mr Vincent was being held.

[8] There was a further series of kicks and punches by you as Mr Vincent was dragged to the rear of the shop by…

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 Rowles

Details

AGLC: R v Rowles [2015] NZHC 2042
Case: [2015] NZHC 2042
Decision Date: 26 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rowles, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, involved the sentencing of Leon Terence Rowles for causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Kahu Vincent with intent. The court, presided over by Mander J, detailed the brutal and unprovoked attack that Rowles and his associate had carried out on Mr Vincent in a convenience store. The assault, which lasted over four minutes, involved the infliction of numerous blows to Mr Vincent's head and body, leaving him with severe brain injuries and an uncertain long-term prognosis. The court highlighted the extreme nature of the violence, the serious injury inflicted, and the vulnerability of the victim when the attack turned lethal.

The legal issues centred on determining an appropriate starting point for Rowles' sentence, taking into account the aggravating features of the crime such as the extreme violence and the serious injury caused, as well as any mitigating factors that could adjust this starting point. The court considered the lack of mitigating factors, Rowles' offer of reparation, his remorse, and his early guilty plea. Despite these considerations, the court found that a significant punishment was necessary to denounce the conduct, hold Rowles accountable, and deter others.

Mander J concluded that a starting point of 10 and a half years imprisonment was appropriate, reflecting the upper range of serious violent offending. After applying the mitigating factors, including a 20% discount for the early guilty plea and a six-month reduction for remorse, the court sentenced Rowles to eight years imprisonment with a minimum term of four years. The court also ordered Rowles to make a reparation payment of $1,000 to Mr Vincent. Publication restrictions were imposed in relation to Rowles' co-accused, in compliance with previous suppression orders.

Orders