R v Scanlon - [2018] NZHC 3376

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2017-063-3068

[2018] NZHC 3376

THE QUEEN

v

IRENE MARGARET SCANLON

Counsel:
L Dunn for Crown

M W Ryan for Defendant

Sentencing:

18 December 2018

Charges:

Wilfully attempting to obstruct the course of justice

Plea:

Not Guilty

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors:
Almao Douch (Hamilton) for Crown

R v SCANLON [2018] NZHC 3376 [18 December 2018]

Introduction

[1] Ms Scanlon, you have sat in many docks in the past and listened to Judges talk about what you have done and listened while they imposed various sentences. Now it is my turn to do that on the charge of wilfully attempting to obstruct the course of justice.1 The maximum penalty for that charge is seven years’ imprisonment.

[2] The jury was hung on the charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply. Ms Dunn for the Crown has just told me the Crown will not proceed with that charge, and so I dismiss it.

Facts

[3]I will mention the facts briefly.

[4] You had been in and on-an-off relationship with Mr Heke for quite a number of years. During this time, he would abuse you physically. I accept the evidence you gave in Court on the nature and extent of that physical abuse.

[5] On 13 August 2017, Mr Heke had an active warrant out for his arrest. He had been involved in an incident in Morrinsville where he had fired many shots at three police officers. Mr Heke fled the scene and he was not found until the night of 24 August 2017 at an address in Kaingaroa. He has since pleaded guilty to a charge of using a firearm against law enforcement officers.

[6] However, during the period he was on the run, you helped him. There were communications between you and him on 24 August 2017 that reveal that. These communications were intercepted by Police. They reveal you bought Mr Heke a Ford Mustang for $10,000 using cash you collected from a person who was holding it for Mr Heke. Mr Heke and one of his friends collected this vehicle from you on the morning of 24 August 2017. You bought the Mustang in another person’s name to avoid detection.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 117(e).

Starting point

[7] There is no decision which tells me the levels of sentencing for obstructing the course of justice. The Court of Appeal has said the real focus must be on the intention behind the attempt and its potential effect.2

[8] I have taken guidance from a number of similar cases.3 Some of the cases involve convictions for being an accessory after the fact to murder.4 Although this is a different offence, the maximum penalty is the same and the underlying conduct similar, so I accept that the decisions are helpful.

[9] The Crown seeks a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment. It points particularly to the degree of planning your assistance to Mr Heke…

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 Scanlon

Details

AGLC: R v Scanlon [2018] NZHC 3376
Case: [2018] NZHC 3376
Decision Date: 18 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand in Hamilton heard the case of R v Scanlon, where Irene Margaret Scanlon was charged with wilfully attempting to obstruct the course of justice. The Crown sought a starting point of 18 months' imprisonment, while the defence argued for a starting point of 15 to 18 months. The court determined that the appropriate starting point for Scanlon's offending was 15 months' imprisonment. The court also considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including her lengthy criminal history, which led to a three-month uplift. Scanlon's expressions of remorse were not deemed sufficient for a separate discount, and the court granted a discount of four months for the time spent on electronic monitoring (EM) bail.

Ultimately, the court sentenced Scanlon to one year and two months' imprisonment, which was commuted to seven months' home detention, considering the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The sentence includes special conditions such as abstaining from illicit drugs, not associating with Mr Heke, attending assessments and treatment programs, and adhering to the rules of a maintenance group.

The final orders of the court included the sentence of seven months' home detention with specific conditions, as well as post-detention conditions, such as abstaining from illicit drugs and attending any directed counselling or treatment programs.

Orders