R v Turner - [2016] NZHC 754

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-090-004160 [2016] NZHC 754

THE QUEEN

v

MITCHELL TURNER

Hearing: 21 April 2016

Appearances:

B Northwood for Crown
P Boylan for Defendant

Judgment:

21 April 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Copy to: P Boylan, Auckland

R v MITCHELL TURNER [2016] NZHC 754 [21 April 2016]

[1] Mitchell Turner you are for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of

arson. The maximum penalty for that is 14 years’ imprisonment.

[2] Some time prior to 1 May last year you, together with a number of other associates, formed a common intention to carry out an arson at 2 Trading Place, Henderson. Henderson Mechanical and Tyres Limited operated from the premises. On the summary that you have pleaded to, and that I have to sentence you on, it was not your idea. You only became involved on the basis you would receive some payment for being involved in and committing the arson.

[3] At about 5.00 am on Friday, 1 May 2015, you and an associate went to the address at 2 Trading Place, Henderson. You and your associate smashed a door at the rear of the address and went in and poured petrol inside the building. You then set the petrol alight. A large fire engulfed the building causing significant damage to it. The damage has been assessed at costing between $380,000 and $425,000 to repair. Inside the mechanic’s shop at the time were 10 cars or vehicles belonging to the customers of Henderson Mechanical and Tyres Limited, all of which were destroyed in the fire. In addition four vehicles belonging to the company itself were destroyed. The value of the vehicles destroyed is unknown at present.

[4] In explanation you admitted to knowing about the arson but you initially denied committing it. The total loss caused by your actions, including the damage to the insured and uninsured vehicles, is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is no realistic prospect of you making any meaningful reparation at all. You have acknowledged you have no financial means to pay any reparation.

[5] Mr Turner although you are only 28 years old you have regularly been before the Courts since a first conviction in 2004. You have a concerning and significant history of burglary and breaching Court release conditions. Your explanation for your offending in this case is that you were heavily addicted to methamphetamine. You said you agreed to commit the arson for money to fund your methamphetamine addiction. You said you were offered $5,000 to burn the premises down.

[6] Apart from a brief period of work as a labourer in Christchurch you have not recently been in employment. You were an associate of a gang. On a positive note, as Mr Boylan has submitted, you have taken some steps to address your methamphetamine habit since arrest and have completed some courses whilst you have been in custody on remand.

[7] In addition to denunciation…

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 Turner

Details

AGLC: R v Turner [2016] NZHC 754
Case: [2016] NZHC 754
Decision Date: 21 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Mitchell Turner, the defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of arson, which resulted in significant damage to a commercial property in Henderson. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant's involvement in the arson. The legal issues involved assessing the gravity of the offence, the extent of harm caused, and the defendant's personal circumstances, including his history of offending and his methamphetamine addiction. The court also had to consider the mitigating factors such as the defendant's guilty plea and steps taken to address his addiction while in custody.

The court found that the defendant was not the instigator of the arson but willingly participated for financial gain. The arson caused extensive damage to the property and vehicles, with repair costs estimated between $380,000 and $425,000. The court considered the aggravating factors, including premeditation, the defendant's role in the crime, and the extent of the damage. The defendant had a history of criminal activity and was under supervision at the time of the offence. However, the court also acknowledged the defendant's efforts to address his addiction and his guilty plea as mitigating factors. The court determined that a starting point of five years' imprisonment was appropriate, with an uplift of three months due to the defendant's breach of supervision. After applying the mitigating factors, the court sentenced the defendant to two years and four months in prison.

The court's final order was that Mitchell Turner be sentenced to imprisonment for two years and four months on the charge of arson. The decision reflects the court's consideration of both the aggravating and mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence. The court emphasised the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community while also acknowledging the defendant's efforts to address his addiction and his guilty plea.

Orders