Legal Research
Cases
R v Sanders

R v Sanders

Case [2019] NZHC 164 15 February 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2018-044-2957

CRI 2018-044-2649

[2019] NZHC 164

THE QUEEN

v

BAILEY DESMOND SANDERS

Hearing: 14 December 2018

Appearances:

E L Woolley for the Crown

G A Harvey and K-A Stoikoff for Mr Sanders

Date:

15 February 2019

SENTENCING REMARKS OF JAGOSE J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland
Public Defence Service, North Shore City

R v SANDERS [2019] NZHC 164 [15 February 2019]

Introduction

[1] Mr Sanders, you are here for sentencing on two charges: wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm,1 and assault with intent to injure.2 You pleaded guilty to both charges.

[2] The wounding with intent charge is your third ‘strike’ offence.3 That means I must impose the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence,4 which is 14 years. That is the sentence you will receive today.

[3] I also must order you to serve that sentence without possibility of parole, unless I am satisfied, given your circumstances and that of the offence, such would be “manifestly unjust”.5 That is, if a sentence without parole would clearly and convincingly be “grossly disproportionate” to those circumstances.6 This really is my only decision today.

[4] I have listened to what counsel have said, both for you and for the Crown. I am not bound by their views, I have to come to my own decision.

Facts

[5] You currently are serving time for first and second ‘strike’ offences: wounding with intent to injure in 2014; and injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm in 2016. Your first strike related to an attack with a knife on two people in public, attracting a sentence of two years and eight months’ imprisonment.7 Your second strike related to weapon offending - then in prison, in a group assault on another inmate – for which you were sentenced to a further five years’ imprisonment.8 Your sentence would have expired in 2024, and you would have been eligible for parole from 2021, two years from now.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1).
2      Section 193.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 86A.
4      Section 86D(2).
5      Section 86D(3).
6      R v Harrison [2016] NZCA 381, [2016] 3 NZLR 602 at [83] and [108(b)].
7      R v Sanders DC Whangarei CRI-2016-088-000922, 15 June 2016.
8      R v Sanders [2017] NZDC 9491.

[6] Your offending for sentence today was again committed inside prison walls, this time as an inmate at Paremoremo. The assault with intent to injure occurred on 1 June 2018. You punched an on-duty prison officer in the face. The wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm occurred some weeks later, on 21 July 2018. You and another prisoner followed a third prisoner into his cell, where some altercation took place.

[7] The victim ran out of his cell into the hallway, but you followed, armed with a shank-type weapon in your right hand. You struck him in the back of the head with it.…

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 Sanders

Details

AGLC: R v Sanders [2019] NZHC 164
Case: [2019] NZHC 164
Decision Date: 15 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bailey Desmond Sanders was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and assault with intent to injure. The defendant had pleaded guilty to both charges. The court was required to decide whether the maximum sentence for the wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm charge should be imposed without the possibility of parole. The court considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his history of violence and lack of remorse, as well as the impact of his offending on the victim. The court also considered the purposes of sentencing, including accountability, deterrence, and protection of the community. The court determined that the maximum sentence without parole would not be manifestly unjust and imposed a 14-year sentence for the wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm charge, with a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years. The court also imposed a 12-month sentence for the assault with intent to injure charge, to be served concurrently with the other sentences. The sentences were to be served concurrently with the defendant's existing sentence.
In conclusion, the court imposed a 14-year sentence for the wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm charge, with a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years, and a 12-month sentence for the assault with intent to injure charge, to be served concurrently with the defendant's existing sentence. The court found that the maximum sentence without parole was not manifestly unjust and that the defendant's personal circumstances and history of violence warranted a harsh sentence. The court also emphasized the importance of holding the defendant accountable and protecting the community from further offending.

Orders