R v Savage - [2014] NZHC 1802

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI2013-087-1479 [2014] NZHC 1802

THE QUEEN

v

DEUCE DERRICK EVO RUA SAVAGE TERERE KIWAHO MACDONALD DEREK MAYNARD SAVAGE

Appearances:
R Jensen for the Crown

H S Eward for Deuce Savage
W Nabney for MacDonald
A C Balme for Derek Savage

Sentence:

1 August 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Counsel:
R Jensen, Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Tauranga
H S Edward, Barrister, Rotorua
W T Nabney, Barrister, Tauranga
A C Balme, Barrister,Tauranga

R v SAVAGE, MACDONALD, SAVAGE [2014] NZHC 1802 [1 August 2014]

[1] Mr MacDonald and Messrs Deuce and Derek Savage, you were all found guilty by a jury on two charges of discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. In addition you Mr Deuce Savage and you Mr MacDonald were found guilty on a charge of aggravated robbery.

[2] Given your convictions on those charges, you are now subject to what is called the “three strikes” legislation. I now enter convictions on all charges on which you were found guilty by the jury and as a consequence I am required to provide you with a warning under that legislation.

[3] The warning relates to the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written notice outlining these consequences which lists the serious violent offences in question. The warning is this:

If you are convicted of any serious violent offences other than murder committed after this warning and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release.

If you are convicted of murder, committed after this warning, then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. That will be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

[4] In addition to the charges in respect of which I have just given you a warning you, Mr Deuce Savage, were also found guilty on a charge of demanding with menaces.

[5] The charges of discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm carry maximum sentences of 14 years imprisonment, as does the charge of aggravated robbery. The charge of demanding with menaces carries a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment.

Facts

[6] I propose to deal firstly with the charges on which you were all found guilty. They are the two charges of discharging a firearm with intention to cause grievous bodily harm. The incident that gave rise to those charges occurred later in time than

the incidents giving rise to the other charges, but it is much more serious and for that reason I consider it appropriate to deal with that particular issue first.

[7] The incident began after the three of you, together with others, had been drinking at Mr Derek Savage’s address on the evening of 12 September 2012. At about 5.00 am the next morning you, Mr MacDonald, went around to an address occupied by Mr…

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 Savage

Details

AGLC: R v Savage [2014] NZHC 1802
Case: [2014] NZHC 1802
Decision Date: 1 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendants, Deuce Derrick Evo Rua Savage Terere Kiwaho MacDonald and Derek Maynard Savage, were found guilty of discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, as well as other related charges. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentences for the defendants, taking into account the nature of the crimes, the context in which they were committed, and any relevant mitigating or aggravating factors. The defendants were also subject to the "three strikes" legislation, which imposes mandatory minimum sentences for certain violent offences.

The court considered the principles outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002, and determined that a starting point of 12½ years imprisonment was appropriate for the charge of discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. This was due to the premeditated nature of the crime, the involvement of multiple attackers, the use of deadly weapons, and the fact that the crime occurred within a gang context. The court also imposed a minimum term of imprisonment of six years four months on this charge.

For the other charges, the court imposed sentences of two years three months imprisonment on Deuce Savage for the charges of demanding with menaces and aggravated robbery, and 18 months imprisonment on MacDonald for the charge of aggravated robbery. The sentences for Deuce Savage were to run concurrently with each other, but cumulatively with the sentence for discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The sentence for MacDonald on the charge of aggravated robbery was to run cumulatively with the sentence for discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

In summary, the defendants were sentenced to significant terms of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of their crimes and the need to hold them accountable for their actions. The court also imposed minimum terms of imprisonment to ensure that the defendants serve a substantial portion of their sentences before being eligible for parole.

Orders