R v Santos - [2019] NZHC 2670

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-004-10572

[2019] NZHC 2670

THE QUEEN

v

MICAH SHANNON SANTOS

Hearing: 18 October 2019

Counsel:

H Steele for Crown

M Pecotic for Defendant

Judgment:

18 October 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J

Solicitors Meredith Connell, Auckland

R v SANTOS [2019] NZHC 2670 [18 October 2019]

Fakatapu kihe 'Otua mafimafi – acknowledging god/heavenly father Fakatapu kia hou'eiki mo ha'a matapule – nobility and chiefs Fakatapu kihe faifekau – Church minister
Fakatapu kihe family - family
Kae ‘ata mo ‘oku keu fai atu hoku fatongia – to clear the way for me to carry out my duty/obligation

[1] Mr Santos, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted murder. I must now fix your sentence. To do this I must set out what you did, and I must talk about your personal circumstances. I will then talk about the factors that are important in terms of setting a sentence for you. Finally, I will fix an end sentence.

Summary of facts

[2] First, the facts of your offending and I know this will be distressing for the victim but it is something that I have to do.

[3] You and the victim were in a relationship for eight to nine months. On 17 November 2018, the victim posted photos on her Snapchat story showing her with other males. This angered you, but when you attempted to contact her on Facebook, the victim told you she wanted to end the relationship and blocked you from contacting her.

[4] On 19 November 2018, the victim spoke to you on the phone and again stated that the relationship was over. You then created a false Facebook account with the name “Sarah Hussein”, and contacted the victim, saying “Sarah” was your friend and suggesting that the two of you meet up and talk.

[5] On Thursday, 22 November, you, posing as “Sarah”, arranged to meet the victim on Anzac Avenue. On arrival you approached the victim and you began arguing. You then told the victim you wanted to kill her and put your hands around her throat.

[6] You released the victim and pulled a carving knife from your bag. The victim told you “you don’t have the guts to do it”. You put the knife away and a further argument ensued. The victim attempted to walk away, but you grabbed her and tried to pull her into the parking lot, stopping only when the victim began to scream. The

victim continued to yell at you, and you turned around while holding the knife in your sleeve. The victim saw the knife and asked, “are you serious Micah, would you do that to me?”

[7] You then grabbed the victim by the neck and stabbed her in the stomach. You struck her repeatedly with the knife about her torso as she fell to the ground and continued to strike her as she lay prone. At one point…

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 Santos

Details

AGLC: R v Santos [2019] NZHC 2670
Case: [2019] NZHC 2670
Decision Date: 18 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Santos involved Micah Shannon Santos, who pleaded guilty to one count of attempted murder. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Santos's violent actions, which included a pre-meditated attack on his former partner. The court needed to balance the gravity of the offence with Santos's personal circumstances, including his young age, emotional instability, and supportive family environment.

The legal issues revolved around establishing an appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. Aggravating factors included the pre-planned nature of the attack, the extreme violence exhibited, and the serious injuries inflicted upon the victim. Mitigating factors comprised Santos's youth, his emotional instability, his remorse, and the strong support from his family. The court also had to decide on the appropriate discount for Santos's guilty plea and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court concluded that the seriousness of the offence warranted a starting point of 10 years imprisonment, aligning with similar cases involving premeditated violence and serious injury. However, mitigating factors such as Santos's youth, emotional struggles, and supportive family warranted a 25% reduction in the starting point. Additionally, a 20% discount for the guilty plea resulted in a final sentence of six years imprisonment. The court also issued a first strike warning regarding the consequences of any future serious violent offences.

The court's final orders included a sentence of six years imprisonment for Santos, with the opportunity for rehabilitation emphasised to address his underlying issues and support his reintegration into society.

Orders