R v Smith - [2014] NZHC 2091

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI-2010-045-000249 [2014] NZHC 2091

THE QUEEN

v

DANIEL ETHAN SMITH

Hearing: 29 August 2014

Appearances:

A R McRae for Crown
CWJ Stevenson and C J Milnes for Prisoner

Judgment:

29 August 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Daniel Smith, you are for sentence today having been found guilty of manslaughter by a jury at the end of a trial here in Timaru, in July this year.

[2] Now, regrettably, because there had to be a retrial, the events on which you were charged occurred more than four years ago. Both you and your victim, William Lewis, were 16 at the time. Oamaru is a small town and it appears that you and Mr Lewis knew each other from school.

[3] Now rightly or wrongly, Mr Lewis thought you had been spreading rumours about having slept with his ex-girlfriend and he was angry about this. And at around
9.45 pm near Dominos Pizza’s on Thames Street, which is the main street in Oamaru, he confronted you about this. Now he was obviously agitated and tried to goad you into a fight and we heard evidence from a reliable member of the public as to this. You did not take up this challenge. You walked away saying that your Dad
was waiting for you at home and you had to go to work tomorrow.

R v SMITH [2014] NZHC 2091 [29 August 2014]

[4] A short time later Mr Lewis was picked up in a vehicle by friends and they drove around looking for you. They met up with you about five minutes later on the corner of Thames and Torridge Street. You continued walking along Thames Street and into Exe Street while Mr Lewis continued to try and initiate a fight with you. Mr Lewis’s friend, Donovan Smith, followed the two of you into Exe Street, and taunts were shouted at you and issues were escalating. You did end up with your back to the bonnet of a parked car facing Mr Lewis.

[5] At that point Mr Lewis grabbed your hoodie and pulled it down about your elbow. You then straightened your hoodie, extracted the knife you were carrying in your jeans pocket and stabbed Mr Lewis three times in the back. As we have heard today those wounds were inflicted with at least moderate force according to the pathologist, but in any event, sufficient force to chip a bone in the victim’s spine. The wounds varied in length from 12.5 to 15 centimetres and one punctured the aorta artery causing fatal bleeding. You then ran off along Exe Street, stopping briefly at the home of an associate, where you threw the knife away. When he would not take you in to his house, you continued on to your home where police subsequently located you.

[6] And you initially claimed you had been at home all night and had nothing to do with the death of Mr Lewis.

[7] Your…

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 [2014] NZHC 2091
Case: [2014] NZHC 2091
Decision Date: 29 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daniel Ethan Smith, the respondent, was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury in the Timaru District Court, New Zealand, following a trial in July. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Smith, who had been found guilty of killing William Lewis. The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriate sentence for manslaughter, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the principles of sentencing, and the impact on the victim and their family. The court considered the evidence presented, including the victim impact statements, the pre-sentence report, and the comparative cases referred to by both the Crown and the defence. The judge acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and the need for accountability, deterrence, and rehabilitation. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the judge determined a starting point of eight years imprisonment, adjusted for Smith's youth and guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of five years and nine months imprisonment.

The High Court of New Zealand, Timaru Registry, ordered that Daniel Ethan Smith be sentenced to five years and nine months imprisonment, with credit for time already served. The court also noted the importance of Smith's rehabilitation and reintegration into society upon his release from prison, and the need to mitigate against the assessed high likelihood of reoffending.

Orders