R v Wallis - [2014] NZHC 2479

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-019-6075 [2014] NZHC 2479

THE QUEEN

v

ANNETTE KAYE WALLIS

Hearing: 9 October 2014

Counsel:

R G Douch for the Crown
M Bates for the Prisoner

Judgment:

9 October 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF BROWN J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
Counsel: M Bates, Hamilton

R v WALLIS [2014] NZHC 2479 [9 October 2014]

[1] Ms Wallis you are being sentenced today on one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm under s 188(1) of the Crimes Act. You pleaded guilty to this charge on 18 August 2014.

Background facts

[2] The Crown prosecutor has read this morning the summary of facts and I will only refer then briefly to aspects of them. But in summary, you and the victim had been in a relationship on and off for some five years prior to your offending. On the morning of 17 November 2013 you were together at your residence. There was a degree of harassment to the point that the victim decided he needed to leave the premises. He loaded his possessions into a van and attempted to drive away from the address but he could not because you blocked the driveway entrance with your car.

[3] Approximately an hour was spent then as he attempted to persuade you to allow him to leave. You would not agree and you said that you would crash your car into his van in order to kill you both. You then drove your vehicle at the victim and he ducked behind his van to avoid being struck. He left the property on foot, walked to a neighbouring road and when he came out into the roadway you pursued him in your car. You drove it onto the footpath towards him and he had to take evasive action to avoid the car. The victim then walked onto a traffic island and in pursuit you drove your vehicle onto the traffic island narrowly missing him on that occasion.

[4] The victim then crossed into a shopping complex and walked through the car park. You drove through the car park and you drove straight at him, hitting him and carrying him for several metres on the bonnet of your vehicle. When he fell off the car you reversed and accelerated forward at speed again. You hit him with the car, knocked him to the ground and then you drove on top of him and trapped him under the front left wheel for a period. You attempted to drive towards him again and passers-by, who were attempting to come to his aid, had to take evasive action to avoid being hit themselves but at the last moment you veered to the left and drove along the footpath hitting a street sign.

[5] You then proceeded onwards to a grass reserve by the Waikato River. You stopped the vehicle just before the river track footpath. You remained in the vehicle talking on your cellphone for several minutes 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 Wallis

Details

AGLC: R v Wallis [2014] NZHC 2479
Case: [2014] NZHC 2479
Decision Date: 9 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wallis, the defendant, Annette Kaye Wallis, was charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm under section 188(1) of the Crimes Act. Wallis pleaded guilty to the charge on 18 August 2014, and the case was heard before Brown J on 9 October 2014. The key legal issue was to determine an appropriate sentence for Wallis, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offence, as well as her personal circumstances and mental health.

The court considered various factors when determining the appropriate sentence, including the extreme violence of the offence, the serious injury caused to the victim, the use of a weapon, and the vulnerability of the victim. The court also took into account mitigating factors such as Wallis' genuine remorse, her good character, and her mental health issues, which were partially causative of the offending. The court followed the guidelines set out in Taueki, which categorises grievous bodily harm offending into three bands based on the presence or absence of aggravating and mitigating factors. Wallis' offending was placed in Band two, which justifies a starting point of between five and 10 years imprisonment.

After applying discounts for Wallis' late guilty plea, remorse, good character, and mental health issues, the court imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment. This sentence was within the Band two range, and it was deemed appropriate to hold Wallis accountable for the harm caused to the victim, promote a sense of responsibility in Wallis, denounce her conduct, and deter her and others from similar offending. The court also considered the purposes of assisting Wallis in her rehabilitation and reintegration into society, as well as the principles of sentencing outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Annette Kaye Wallis to four years imprisonment for the offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The sentence took into account the various aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, as well as Wallis' personal circumstances and mental health issues. The court's decision was guided by the principles of accountability, deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, as well as the relevant sentencing purposes and principles set out in the Sentencing Act 2002.

Orders