R v Smith - [2023] NZHC 2102

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-009-8192

[2023] NZHC 2102

THE KING

v

JOSHUA DAVID CRAIG SMITH DANIEL NELSON SPARKS

Hearing: 4 August 2023

Counsel:

B Hawes and A M Harvey for the Crown

J R Rapley KC and D M Kirby for the Defendant Smith D J Matthews for the Defendant Sparks

Date:

9 August 2023

SENTENCING REMARKS OF HARLAND J

[1] I start first of all by acknowledging all who are present here today. This includes those who are here to support the memory of Connor Whitehead and those who are here today to support the defendants at their sentencing. The circumstances that bring everybody together today are tragic. The death of a young person is hard enough, however, the death of a young person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and who was killed in such a violent way, is extremely distressing. Nothing I say in sentencing the defendants responsible for his death or those who assisted them will make that loss any easier. Many of you will find the sentencing process to be clinical, dispassionate and somewhat removed. Hearing again what happened to Connor and comparing what happened to him to what may have happened in other cases will be both distressing and distasteful to some. But, there is a

R v SMITH & SPARKS [2023] NZHC 2102 [9 August 2023]

sentencing process I must follow to ensure that the sentences I impose today are transparent but also that they accord with the law.

[2] So, I now address you Mr Sparks and you Mr Smith. You both appear before the Court today for sentence having been found guilty by a jury of Connor’s manslaughter and, in your case Mr Sparks, the plea of guilty at the outset of the trial to the possession of ammunition. I intend to deal with you both together by outlining matters that are common to you both and then to address each of you separately. You may remain seated throughout the process but I will ask you to stand at the end.

[3] As I am sure you both know, the maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment.

[4] It is accepted by both of you that your end sentences must be a term of imprisonment. The question for me to determine is what the starting point for each of your terms of imprisonment should be, whether an uplift is required to reflect your respective previous convictions and what deductions might be available to you both for mitigating matters and, if so, to what extent.

The offending

[5]I start by outlining what happened.

[6] On 5 November 2021, Mr Sparks your daughter was celebrating her 15th birthday at a party at her home in Heaphy Place. She shared that address with her mother, her mother’s partner and her 18 year old brother. She invited her friends, one of whom was Connor. The evening…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [2023] NZHC 2102
Case: [2023] NZHC 2102
Decision Date: 9 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smith concerns the sentencing of Joshua David Craig Smith and Daniel Nelson Sparks, who were found guilty of manslaughter and possession of ammunition, respectively, in relation to the death of Connor Whitehead. The incident occurred during a party at Sparks' residence when a group of uninvited individuals, associated with the Crips gang, disrupted the event. Smith and Sparks, who were at the party, armed themselves with loaded shotguns and confronted the group, resulting in the tragic death of Connor, an innocent bystander. Following the incident, both defendants attempted to evade the authorities by disposing of the firearms and destroying evidence.

The court considered various factors in determining the appropriate sentences for the defendants. The gravity of the offence, including the extreme violence and recklessness involved, was a significant aggravating factor. Smith's role in firing the fatal shot and his extensive criminal history warranted a higher starting point. The court adopted a starting point of 10 years' imprisonment for Smith, with a five percent uplift due to his criminal history, resulting in a final sentence of seven years' imprisonment. For Sparks, who did not fire the fatal shot but participated in the confrontation and evidence destruction, the court adopted a starting point of nine years' imprisonment, with a five percent uplift, leading to a final sentence of six years and three months' imprisonment.

Both defendants displayed remorse and had mitigating personal circumstances, such as difficult upbringings and substance abuse issues, which were considered in the sentencing. The court emphasized the importance of accountability, deterrence, and the impact of the crime on the victim's family.

Orders