[1] Mr Walker, you appear for sentence following a trial by jury where you were found guilty of a charge of attempted murder.1 The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years’ imprisonment.

Facts

[2] The victim and you were in an on-again, off-again relationship for about three years but had separated about 12 months before the incident which occurred on
18 February 2015. You and the victim were still friends, occasionally seeing each other. It is fair to say it was a troubled relationship but still a close one.

[3] By the date of the offending, the victim was well advanced in her plans to travel to Spain, intending to leave in March 2015.

[4] You were concerned she would meet someone else when she went to Spain. On a previous occasion, after a telephone conversation between you and the victim when she went to Australia, you told your then girlfriend you wanted to stab the victim, calling her a whore. You said in evidence your core concern about the victim going to Australia was that she was going to see another man. You told the jury you were absolutely against the victim seeing other people.

[5] On the day of the offending, you sent a text message to the victim saying you were going to Otaki the next day. You accept you used that to get an immediate response from her and for her to come to your flat.

[6] When the victim and her friend arrived at your flat, you all sat outside, drinking and talking. You used the pretext of being cold to go inside and get a jumper but, instead, you took a knife (about 12 cm in length) and hid it in your jumper. You then set a test for the victim, asking if she would agree to spend the night with you. You agreed you would not have stabbed her if she had agreed to stay
with you.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 173.

[7] You repeatedly asked the victim to go with you the next day to Otaki and for her to stay with you that night. She was adamant that she would not. The victim and her friend became uncomfortable and wanted to leave.

[8] You became agitated and said you had something to give her before she left. [9] You said to the victim, “you shouldn’t fuck with my heart”.
[10] You grabbed her and held her close around the waist so she could not get away.

[11] You then stabbed her in a frenzied attack, wherever you could in the upper part of her body. You…

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 Walker

Details

AGLC: R v Walker [2015] NZHC 3214
Case: [2015] NZHC 3214
Decision Date: 15 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Walker involved a defendant found guilty of attempted murder. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the nature and extent of the offending, as well as the defendant's personal circumstances. The legal issues included setting a starting point for sentencing, adjusting the starting point based on aggravating and mitigating factors, and deciding whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment.

The court established a starting point of 10 years' imprisonment, considering the frenzied and violent nature of the attack, the premeditation involved, and the serious injuries inflicted upon the victim. The court uplifted the starting point by six months to account for the defendant's history of violent offending. However, the court did not grant a discount for remorse, as the defendant's attitude towards the offending was deemed ambivalent, and there was no genuine acceptance of responsibility. The court did allow a 10% discount for the defendant's psychological condition, resulting in a sentence of nine years and six months' imprisonment. Considering the defendant's lack of genuine remorse, the need for denunciation and deterrence, and the high risk of re-offending, the court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of four years and nine months.

Orders