R v Walker-Dahlberg - [2020] NZHC 1562

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2018-035-1361

[2020] NZHC 1562

THE QUEEN

v

TIANA MAREE WALKER-DAHLBERG

Hearing: 3 July 2020

Counsel:

G J Burston for Crown

I M Antunovic for Ms Walker-Dahlberg

Sentencing:

3 July 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF ELLIS J

[1] Ms Walker-Dahlberg, I have to begin by convicting you, because that has not happened. I am convicting you on the charge of aggravated burglary. I also have to give you a first strike warning because you are now subject to the three strikes law by virtue of that conviction.

[2] So I have to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will be given a written notice outlining those consequences, which also lists the serious violent offences which trigger three strikes. If you are convicted of any serious violent offences other than murder committed after this warning and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment, then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release. If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning, then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. That will be

R v WALKER-DAHLBERG [2020] NZHC 1562 [3 July 2020]

served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

[3] Turning now to your sentence, you will appreciate there are quite a lot of things I need to say before we actually get to that. You pleaded guilty to the charge of aggravated burglary just before Christmas last year. Other charges that you were also facing then, and which related to the same events, were then withdrawn by the Crown.

[4] Before I get to your sentence, there are some things I need to talk about, and the first of those is what happened back on 2 December 2018.

Background

[5] The background to your offending involved a custody dispute between you and your former partner, Mr Ben Francis. One of the two victims (Mr Rhodes) was a relative of Mr Francis. The other victim, Ms Nepia, was Mr Rhodes’ partner.

[6] At around 10 am on Sunday, 2 December 2018, both victims left their home in their car. When they stopped at the intersection of Church Street and Colombo Road, they saw you driving a car travelling south.

[7] You stopped in the middle of the intersection and yelled at Mr Rhodes through an open car window something about his father’s sticker. You were referring to some remembrance stickers that had photographs of Mr Rhodes’ father on them, who had died two years earlier.

[8] Mr Rhodes got out of his vehicle and approached your car, saying that he was going to take the sticker off your car. Then he saw that a Nomads sticker had been placed over the photo of his father. He was upset by this. There was an argument between the two of 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-Dahlberg

Details

AGLC: R v Walker-Dahlberg [2020] NZHC 1562
Case: [2020] NZHC 1562
Decision Date: 3 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Walker-Dahlberg, the defendant, Tiana Maree Walker-Dahlberg, was convicted of aggravated burglary and faced sentencing. The legal issues included determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, and assessing any personal mitigating factors that could warrant a reduction in sentence. The court considered factors such as the degree of planning, the involvement of multiple offenders, the use of disguises, verbal and physical threats of violence, and the timing of the burglary. The court also examined personal mitigating factors, including the defendant's background, the impact of the sentence on her children, her employment history, and her potential for rehabilitation.

The High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, sentenced Walker-Dahlberg to three years' imprisonment for the charge of aggravated burglary. The court adopted a starting point of four and a half years' imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence, but reduced the sentence by 18 months to account for the defendant's remorse, guilty plea, and time spent on restrictive bail conditions. The court acknowledged the defendant's vulnerability and personal tragedies but found that her personal circumstances did not justify a significant reduction in sentence. The court also noted the defendant's potential for rehabilitation and her expressed desire to study criminal law.

Walker-Dahlberg was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for the charge of aggravated burglary. The court found that a reduction of 18 months for remorse, guilty plea, and time spent on restrictive bail was warranted, resulting in a final sentence of three years' imprisonment. The court acknowledged the defendant's personal circumstances and potential for rehabilitation but determined that they did not justify a more significant reduction in sentence.

Orders