Legal Research
Cases
R v Signal

R v Signal

Case [2023] NZHC 2757 2 October 2023

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2019-054-3419

[2023] NZHC 2757

THE KING

v

JASON DAVID SIGNAL

Hearing: 2 October 2023

Appearances:

B D Vanderkolk for Crown M C Jaquiery for Defendant

Sentencing:

2 October 2023

SENTENCING BY PALMER J

Solicitors
Crown Solicitor, Palmerston North M J Law, Whanganui

THE KING v SIGNAL [2023] NZHC 2757 [2 October 2023]

[1] On 21 September 2022, in the High Court at Palmerston North, Mr Jason Signal was found guilty and convicted of the offences of:

(a)participation in an organised criminal group;1

(b)being a party to wounding Mr Kyle Rowe with intent to cause grievous bodily harm;2 and

(c)being a party to the manslaughter of Mr Codi Wilkinson.3

[2] I adjourned Mr Signal’s sentencing, at his request and with the consent of the Crown, to allow the Court of Appeal time to consider an appeal regarding an issue with a juror. The Court of Appeal has now dismissed the appeal based on that issue.4 It also acquitted Mr Signal of the offence of participation in an organised criminal group, because it duplicated the other two offences. So, he is not to be sentenced for that. The Court of Appeal has adjourned a further appeal ground regarding the manslaughter offence, pending a further decision by the Supreme Court. But it is usually the case that a conviction appeal is filed after sentencing. While the delay until sentencing has been at his request, Mr Signal has waited long enough to be sentenced. I sentence him today for the two offences of wounding within intent to cause grievous bodily harm and manslaughter.

What happened?

[3] I have given careful consideration to the evidence heard at trial. I briefly recount the proven facts relevant to this sentencing.

[4] Mr Signal is good at fixing cars. The evidence at trial is that he was a responsible babysitter and friend. He was also addicted to methamphetamine and became a close friend of Mr Jeremiah Su’a, the President of the Aotearoa chapter of the Mongrel Mob. Mr Signal is not a member, prospect, or associate of the Mongrel Mob.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A: maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Sections 188(1) and 66(2): maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 171, 160(2)(a), 177 and 66(2): maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
4      Signal v R [2023] NZCA 459.

[5] On 12 September 2019, Mr Signal travelled in a car with Mr Su’a from Palmerston North to Mulgrave Street, Ashhurst. They stopped at various addresses in Palmerston North first. The four men other than Mr Signal were all patched members of the Mongrel Mob. They went to 107 Mulgrave Street to de-patch Mr Wilkinson and Mr Rowe, who were junior members of the Mongrel Mob but who had attacked and robbed a friend of the Su’as.

[6] Violence was expected at the de-patching and violence eventuated. Mr Wilkinson and Mr Rowe were attacked. Weapons were used. After…

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 Signal

Details

AGLC: R v Signal [2023] NZHC 2757
Case: [2023] NZHC 2757
Decision Date: 2 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The King v Signal involved Jason David Signal, who was convicted of participating in an organized criminal group, being a party to the wounding of Kyle Rowe with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and being a party to the manslaughter of Codi Wilkinson. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed an appeal regarding an issue with a juror, and acquitted Signal of the organized criminal group charge as it duplicated the other two offences. Signal's sentencing was adjourned to allow time for the Court of Appeal to consider the appeal and for Signal to rehabilitate himself. The High Court considered the evidence heard at trial and the impact of Signal's involvement in the offending on the victims and their families.

The legal issues the court had to decide included determining an appropriate starting point for Signal's sentence, considering the factors that should be taken into account in adjusting the starting point, and deciding whether imprisonment or home detention would be the most appropriate sentence for Signal. The court had to balance the purposes and principles of sentencing, taking into account the gravity of the offending, Signal's culpability, the effect of the offending on the victims, and Signal's personal circumstances and background.

The court set a starting point for the manslaughter offence of four years and four months' imprisonment, reflecting the aggravating factors of the offending but also Signal's relatively minor and peripheral role. The court then made adjustments for Signal's personal circumstances, including his methamphetamine addiction, his prospects of rehabilitation, and the time he had spent on electronically monitored bail. The court concluded that imprisonment would not meet the requirements of least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances and would likely set back Signal's rehabilitation. A sentence of home detention would maximize Signal's prospects of becoming a productive member of society again and is the least restrictive sentence appropriate in these circumstances.

The final orders of the court were that Signal be sentenced to five months' home detention at the proposed address, with special conditions including not to possess, consume or use any alcohol or drugs not prescribed to him, to attend and complete an appropriate alcohol and drug programme, to attend an assessment for any counselling, treatment or programme as directed by a Probation Officer, and to attend and complete any counselling, treatment, or programme as recommended by the assessment and as directed to the satisfaction of a Probation Officer.

Orders