JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeals by each appellant against conviction are dismissed.
BThe appeals by each appellant against sentence are allowed and a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment substituted, with leave granted to each appellant to apply for home detention.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Williams J)
Table of contents
Para No

Issues on appeal  [1]
Facts  [5]
Directions on “wound”  [14]
R v Waters  [16]
Submissions on “wound”  [18]
Discussion and decision on “wound”  [25]
Burglary conviction appeals  [53]
Sentence appeals  [57]
Result  [68]
Issues on appeal
[1]       On 25 July 2007, at the conclusion of their trial in the Rotorua District Court, the appellants, Messrs Scott and Lewis, were convicted by the jury on one count each of wounding a Mr King with intent to injure him and burglary of Mr King’s property.
[2]       The principal ground of their appeals against conviction is that their actions in relation to Mr King did not amount to wounding him within the definition of that term in the authorities.
[3]       On 30 August 2007, Judge Cooper sentenced each of the appellants to three years’ imprisonment for the count of wounding with intent to injure and convicted and discharged them on the burglary count.
[4]       The principal ground of their appeals against sentence is that the three year term was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
Facts
[5]       On 10 August 2005, Mr King had an altercation with a neighbour across the road who refused to return his son’s rugby ball.
[6]       The neighbour complained to a relative, Mr Scott, and he decided, with Mr Lewis, to approach Mr King to “talk and try to neutralise the situation so that it doesn’t happen any more”.
[7]       They went to Mr King’s house, and a confrontation rapidly ensued. The parties swore at each other. The appellants were ordered out but remained. Mr Scott was said to have grabbed Mr King’s son. Mr Lewis hit Mr King in the face with his fists. Mr Scott also punched Mr King in the face with his fists. In all, Mr King said the assailants landed about 15 blows on him and “after that blotto” though he said Mr Scott forced him to go to the neighbours’ to apologise. The Crown case was that Mr King picked up a forestry tool on his return and threatened the appellants.
[8]       Mr Scott’s evidence was that it was Mr King who adopted the confrontational stance, grabbed a weapon and threatened the pair, whereupon they withdrew.
[9]       Mr King’s son fetched another neighbour. According to the Crown, her arrival at the King residence ended the incident. She…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: R v Scott [2007] NZCA 589
Case: [2007] NZCA 589
Decision Date: 19 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Scott and R v Lewis involved the appeal of two defendants against their convictions and sentences in the Rotorua District Court. The appellants, Messrs Scott and Lewis, were convicted of wounding with intent to injure and burglary. Their principal ground of appeal against conviction was that their actions did not amount to wounding the victim within the definition of that term in the authorities. The primary issue on appeal was whether the Crown had proved that the appellants caused the victim to suffer a "wound" within the meaning of the Crimes Act 1961. The appellants submitted that an intra-cerebral haemorrhage was not a "wound" as defined in Waters v R. The Court confirmed the passages in Waters to the effect that any rupture of the tissues of the body, internal or external, with one of the two intents in the section can amount to a "wound" for the purposes of charges brought under s 188. The Court found that Mr King's intra-cerebral haemorrhage resulting from rupture of the arteries in his brain and their bleeding into the space between the inside of his skull and the outer brain, amounted to a wounding. The appeals against conviction were dismissed. The appellants also appealed against their sentences, arguing that the three-year term was manifestly excessive. The Court took the view that a combination of substantial personal mitigating features and allowance for the appellants' ignorance of their actions having extremely serious consequences, warranted a reduction in the final sentence to one of two years imprisonment. The appeals against sentence were allowed and a sentence of two years' imprisonment substituted, with leave granted to each appellant to apply for home detention.

Orders