R v Taylor - [2020] NZHC 3174

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2019-012-002167

[2020] NZHC 3174

THE QUEEN

v

RUAIRI KERN TAYLOR

Hearing: 2 December 2020

Appearances:

R P Bates for Crown

S A Saunderson-Warner for Defendant

Judgment:

2 December 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Mr Taylor, you are here for sentence today having pleaded guilty to three charges. They are:

(a)attempt to cause grievous bodily harm;

(b)assault with a weapon; and

(c)intentional damage.

[2] The facts of the offending are somewhat unusual. On the afternoon of Wednesday, 4 September 2019, you left your employment at a business in Tapanui, Southland. You then went to a hardware store and purchased a tomahawk axe. You

R v TAYLOR [2020] NZHC 3174 [2 December 2020]

then went to your home address in Gore and retrieved a sheathed dive knife which you strapped to your leg. You left Gore, travelled north in your Subaru Forrester vehicle. Soon after leaving Gore, you saw an unmarked police patrol car travelling south. You turned around and followed it until it went into the Gore police station. You then turned and began driving north again. Shortly after 6 pm, a police officer in full uniform was in a marked patrol car which was stationary on the verge of State Highway 1, near Allanton, Dunedin. The patrol car was parked immediately behind a vehicle that the officer had stopped, and the red and blue lights were activated.

[3] On seeing the patrol car, you turned religious music up loud on your car stereo and then you deliberately drove your vehicle into the back of the patrol car, while the police officer was still in the driver’s seat. The impact caused the officer’s head to snap back into the headrest of the driver’s seat and then rebound from the windscreen. His car was shunted forward by the impact and collided with the rear of the vehicle he had stopped, causing damage to the rear bumper bar.

[4] You then got out of your vehicle with the tomahawk and you used it to smash the rear driver side window and then the driver’s window, while the officer was still in the driver’s seat. He called for assistance before escaping through the passenger door. You then chased him down the verge of the state highway for approximately 40 metres with the tomahawk raised above your head, before giving up the chase. Throughout this attack, you were yelling “Allahu Akbar”. A member of the public picked up the officer and drove him away from the scene.

[5] You then returned to the patrol car, smashed the headlights and with the tomahawk made holes in the metal panels of the vehicle. You then went inside the car, began rummaging through its contents, put on the officer’s police uniform hat and jacket that had been left in the patrol car and began yelling religious material from the Quran, which you had in your possession. Police arrived, and…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [2020] NZHC 3174
Case: [2020] NZHC 3174
Decision Date: 2 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Ruairi Kern Taylor, the defendant was sentenced for three charges: attempt to cause grievous bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and intentional damage. The court heard that on 4 September 2019, the defendant deliberately rammed a police patrol car with his vehicle and attacked the officer inside with a tomahawk, causing minor injuries and significant damage to the patrol car. The defendant, who was not a practising Muslim, admitted to the acts but claimed his intention was to provoke the police into shooting him as part of a suicide attempt. The court considered the victim impact statement from the police officer, who described the traumatic experience and fear for his life, as well as the tangential impact on the Muslim community.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the totality of the offending, and assessing mitigating factors such as the defendant's guilty plea, mental health issues, and lack of prior convictions. The court analysed similar cases to establish a starting point and then adjusted it for the totality of the offending, which involved a premeditated attack on a police officer using lethal weapons. The court also considered the emotional and physical harm caused by the defendant's actions, the use of religious props to heighten the threat, and the defendant's attempt to inflict harm on himself through the attack.

The court determined an overall starting point of five and a half years' imprisonment, reflecting the totality of the offending. The defendant received a 25% discount for his guilty plea and a 15% discount for mental health issues, resulting in a final sentence of three years and three months' imprisonment. The court also ordered the defendant to pay $2,000 in reparation for the damage to the police vehicle, with payments to commence upon his release from prison. The final orders of the court included the sentence and the reparation order.

Orders