R v Spicer - [2017] NZHC 1899

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2016-029-000351 [2017] NZHC 1899

THE QUEEN

v

IAN DAVID SYDNEY RUEBAN SPICER

Hearing: 10 August 2017

Appearances:

M B Smith for the Crown
N Town on behalf of W McKean for the Defendant

Sentence:

10 August 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF HINTON J

Solicitors:
Marsden Woods Inskip & Smith, Whangarei
Webb Ross McNab Kilpatrick Ltd, Whangarei

R v IAN SPICER [2017] NZHC 1899 [10 August 2017]

[1] Ian David Sydney Reuban Spicer, you appear for sentence after having accepted a sentence indication provided by me on 7 June 2017. You have pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to injure1 and two counts of aggravated
robbery.2

Facts

[2] Your offending occurred over the course of two separate events, both on the same night.

Wounding with intent to injure

[3] At around 2.00 am on 25 March 2016, you arrived at an address in Kaitaia, driven in a vehicle. Although you knew the female occupant, you had not been invited to the address. You approached the female occupant, asking her what she was up to. You told her you had come from the Kauri Arms Hotel and that you were wasted. The occupant advised you to go home, but you walked towards the garage.

[4] The occupant finished smoking a cigarette and told the group she was off to bed. You began yelling “Yo, Yo, Yo” and stood over the victim who was sitting on the couch, also yelling “Yo, Yo, Yo”. You then began punching him in the face with your fists. The occupant ran inside and called the Police. You continued the attack, during which the victim was badly beaten. You then jumped back into the vehicle in which you had arrived and left the address.

[5] When the Police arrived, they found the victim lying outside. He was bleeding heavily from his head and face, and he suffered multiple facial contusions,
lacerations, and bruising.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2) (maximum penalty – seven years’ imprisonment).
2 Crimes Act, s 235(c) (maximum penalty – 14 years’ imprisonment).

[6] Later that night, at around 4.00 am, you, assisted by two companions, assaulted and robbed two overseas tourists who were asleep in a campervan parked on the foreshore at Ahipara.

[7] You began by rocking the van of the two tourists, almost to the point of tipping it over. The male victim opened the door of the van to see what was happening, thinking at first that it was an earthquake. He called out to ask what was going on, and was punched in the face with a closed fist, resulting in a cut to his chin.

[8] You and your companions demanded money from the victims. When they said they did not have any, the male victim was punched to the ground with multiple blows to the head by more than one of you. He was kicked a number of times once he was on the ground. The female…

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 Spicer

Details

AGLC: R v Spicer [2017] NZHC 1899
Case: [2017] NZHC 1899
Decision Date: 10 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ian David Sydney Reuban Spicer was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand after pleading guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to injure and two counts of aggravated robbery. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Spicer, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 2002. The court set a starting point of five years' imprisonment, considering the gravity of the overall offending, and applied a discount for Spicer's guilty plea and personal mitigating factors. Ultimately, the court sentenced Spicer to three years and six months' imprisonment for the aggravated robbery charges and three years' imprisonment for the wounding with intent to injure charge, to be served concurrently.

The reasoning of the court was based on the principles of accountability, denunciation, deterrence, community protection, and rehabilitation. The court considered the aggravating features of the offences, such as the unprovoked and brutal nature of the attacks, as well as the mitigating factors, such as Spicer's remorse, insight, and desire to change his lifestyle. The court also took into account the victim impact statements, which highlighted the physical and emotional harm caused to the victims. In addition, the court considered the personal circumstances of Spicer, including his difficult upbringing and history of substance abuse. The court encouraged Spicer to make amends and use his potential for good.

Orders