R v Thomas - [2016] NZHC 3083

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2016-096-931 [2016] NZHC 3083

THE QUEEN

v

DUSTIN MANZONE THOMAS

Date: 15 December 2016

Appearances:

A Winsley for the Crown
L M Sziranyi for Mr Thomas

Sentencing:

15 December 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] Mr Thomas, you pleaded guilty to a charge of demanding with menaces following a sentence indication I gave on 20 October 2016.1 You are now to be sentenced.

Circumstances of the offending

[2] You and your associate, [M], are patched members of the Nomad gang. There were two female victims, D and J, who were known to you both. The charge arose from events in the early hours of 12 December 2015.

[3] During the afternoon of 11 December 2015 you had dropped J off at D’s house. D lived with her one year old son (and a flatmate who was not present at the

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 239(2) (maximum penalty seven years imprisonment).

R v THOMAS [2016] NZHC 3083 [15 December 2016]

time of the events). You had come into the house and stayed a few minutes. You were not wearing your Nomad gang patch at this time.

[4] You and [M] returned to the house in the early hours of 12 December 2015 because you believed J had stolen $300 from you. The summary of facts was that you were both wearing your Nomad patches on your return. You entered the house through open French doors which led into the lounge. D and J were in the lounge. You and [M] said some money had gone missing and that J had taken it. J blamed someone else for taking the money. The discussions about this took place in the lounge and in one of the bedrooms. You said you and [M] would not be leaving without taking some “stuff”. The two of you began taking items from the house.

[5] There was a bit of a scuffle between you and D when D tried to stop you from taking her phone. D was making a lot of noise. [M] was holding a knife and told her to “shut the fuck up” or he would stab her. You put your hands around D’s neck and started to choke her. D thought she was going to pass out. The door to D’s son’s room was open and he could see what was happening. You told D to give him her phone and then she could go to her son. D handed over her phone.

[6] You continued to collect items from the house. [M] said D and J would get their things back when they found out where the money was. When D or J said something, [M] said something like “I should cut your fucking tongue out”. [M] told D and J to stay where they were for three minutes. You and [M] left. D and J then went to a neighbouring address and called the police.

[7] D estimates…

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 Thomas

Details

AGLC: R v Thomas [2016] NZHC 3083
Case: [2016] NZHC 3083
Decision Date: 15 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the defendant Dustin Manzone Thomas faced sentencing for a charge of demanding with menaces. Thomas, a patched member of the Nomad gang, along with an associate, returned to a residence believing that one of the female occupants had stolen $300 from them. The pair entered the house wearing their gang patches, confronted the victims, and demanded the return of their money and items. The confrontation escalated when the associate threatened the victims with a knife, and Thomas choked one of the victims in front of her young child. Thomas was sentenced following a guilty plea, with the court determining the appropriate starting point and adjustments for various aggravating and mitigating factors.

The legal issues involved determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering the similarities and differences to previous cases, and deciding on the appropriate uplifts and discounts based on the defendant’s criminal history, the nature of the offence, and the guilty plea. The court had to balance the need for deterrence against the defendant’s expressed remorse and efforts to make amends, such as arranging for the return of stolen property.

The court established a starting point of two years and eight months imprisonment, considering the seriousness of the offence and its similarities to a previous case. An uplift of four months was deemed necessary to reflect the defendant’s persistent criminal behaviour and lack of deterrence from prior sentences. A discount of nearly 20 percent was applied for the guilty plea, and an additional two-month discount was made in recognition of the defendant’s remorse and efforts to rectify the situation. This resulted in a final sentence of two years and three months imprisonment.

The court's final orders included the sentence of two years and three months imprisonment for the defendant. This sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the mitigating factors presented by the defendant's actions post-offence and his plea of guilty.

Orders