[1] Mr Stephenson, you have pleaded guilty to charges of kidnapping, assault with a weapon, threatening to kill (two charges), unlawful possession of a pistol, unlawful possession of a firearm, male assaults female, indecent assault, supplying methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine, possession of a Class C controlled drug and two charges of possession of a drug utensil.

[2] I have previously given you a sentence indication in respect of these charges, which you accepted. Two of the charges (kidnapping and indecent assault) are second strike offences. As a result, you will be required to serve any sentence imposed in respect of those charges without the possibility of parole.1 In addition, you have entered a guilty plea this morning through counsel to a charge of breach of parole. The breach arose as a result of you being found in possession of drugs on 6 April 2017, in breach of your parole conditions.

The offending

[3] On 16 November 2016, you were released from prison, where you had been serving a sentence of two years and eight months’ imprisonment in respect of convictions for assault and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

[4] Five months later, on the evening of 5 April 2017, you sent the victim, whom you knew, a text message saying that you needed to talk to her. In the early hours of the following morning the two of you met and you got into the passenger seat of the victim’s car. Once in the car, you produced a pistol, which you aimed at the victim’s head. You told her to drive and said “this is going to be a long night for you”. You demanded to know where the witnesses who had testified against you at your previous trial lived. The victim told you she did not know, and you shot the pistol at the windscreen, causing it to crack. You then aimed the gun at the victim’s head, and told
her that “the next one is going through your head if you don’t tell me”.

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 86C(1) and (4).

[5] You demanded that the victim drive you to an associate’s address, where you took the victim’s phone and wallet to ensure that she did not leave. You then retrieved what looked like a shotgun covered in blankets. You put it in the boot of the car and said again that it would be a long night for the victim.

[6] You then directed the victim to drive to another location, where you got out of her car…

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 Stephenson

Details

AGLC: R v Stephenson [2018] NZHC 2628
Case: [2018] NZHC 2628
Decision Date: 9 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the defendant David Aaron Stephenson was convicted and sentenced on a range of charges including kidnapping, assault with a weapon, threatening to kill, unlawful possession of firearms, drug supply and possession, indecent assault, and breach of parole. The defendant had previously been imprisoned for assault and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and had been released on parole shortly before the offending in question. The court heard that the defendant, armed with a pistol, had kidnapped the victim, assaulting her and threatening her life over the course of several hours. The court found that the kidnapping charge was the lead offence, with other charges largely subsumed within it. The court also considered the indecent assault and drug-related charges as discrete offences warranting separate uplifts to the sentence. In sentencing, the court imposed a sentence of six years and five months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently, bringing the effective sentence to six years and five months. The court also convicted and discharged the defendant on several other charges.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offending, and whether the court had correctly applied the principles of sentencing. The court found that the defendant's offending was serious and warranted a significant sentence. The court also found that it had appropriately applied the principles of sentencing in imposing the sentence.

The court's reasoning and outcome was that the defendant's offending was serious, occurring over several hours and involving violence, threats, firearms, and drugs. The court found that the kidnapping charge was the lead offence, with other charges largely subsumed within it. The court also found that the indecent assault and drug-related charges warranted separate uplifts to the sentence. The court imposed a sentence of six years and five months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently, bringing the effective sentence to six years and five months. The court also convicted and discharged the defendant on several other charges. The court found that this sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offending, and was consistent with the principles of sentencing.

Orders