R v Warren - [2017] NZHC 1465

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

CRI-2015-006-482 [2017] NZHC 1465

THE QUEEN

v

JASON DAVID WARREN

Hearing: 28 June 2017

Counsel:

J M Webber for the Crown
A J D Bamford for Defendant

Date:

29 June 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF CULL J

[1] While I read my sentencing notes to you Mr Warren you may sit down and I

will ask you to stand again at the end when I formally sentence you.

[2] Mr Warren, you appear for sentence today in relation to seven charges:

(a) Five charges of male assaults female, one of which is representative.

The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment for those charges.1

(b) One charge of kidnapping. The maximum penalty is 14 years’

imprisonment.2

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 194(b).
2 Section 209.

R v WARREN [2017] NZHC 1465 [29 June 2017]

(c) One charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection

(namely penile penetration of the mouth). The maximum penalty is

20 years’ imprisonment.3

[3] You pleaded guilty to these charges on 8 August 2016, which was the first day of the trial.

[4] The main issue for me to decide, particularly at the outset, is whether I should impose a sentence of preventive detention.

[5] As you will have heard from my indication to the Crown prosecutor this morning, after careful consideration, I have decided not to impose preventive detention. In my judgement, I do not feel it is absolutely necessary to protect the public from you in light of the other sentencing options that are available and in light of the reports that the Court has received in respect of your offending. Instead, I will impose a finite sentence of imprisonment, and I am flagging with you now that I intend to couple that with a minimum non-parole period.

[6] In sentencing you, I shall explain: (a) your offending;
(b) your previous convictions;

(c) why I am not imposing a sentence of preventive detention; (d) the starting point I have adopted;
(e) the adjustments I have made to the starting point to reflect the totality of your offending, your prior convictions and your guilty plea;

(f) the minimum period of imprisonment that you must serve; and

(g) your final sentence.

Your offending

[7] Your offending took place in the context of an intimate relationship with H.4

You were in a relationship for at least a year and the offending occurred during this time, between February and August 2014.

[8] Three of the male assaults female charges relate to three separate occasions:

13 February, 13 July and 16 July 2014. On all three occasions, you picked up a pillow, placed it over H’s head and punched her through it repeatedly. On 16 July you also spat in her face and were verbally abusive and threatening towards her.

[9] A further male assaults female charge and the kidnapping charge…

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 Warren

Details

AGLC: R v Warren [2017] NZHC 1465
Case: [2017] NZHC 1465
Decision Date: 29 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Warren involved sentencing for seven charges, including five counts of male assaults female, one count of kidnapping, and one count of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. The defendant, Jason David Warren, pleaded guilty to these charges on the first day of the trial. The primary legal issue was whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention. The court decided against preventive detention, opting instead for a finite sentence of imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period. The court considered the totality of Warren's offending, his previous convictions, and his guilty plea in determining the sentence. The court concluded that a lengthy determinate sentence, coupled with a minimum non-parole period, was appropriate to protect the community, given Warren's high risk of reoffending, particularly against intimate partners. The court sentenced Warren to seven years and two months’ imprisonment, with all sentences to be served concurrently, and a minimum period of imprisonment of four years.

The court found Warren's offending to be serious and persistent, involving significant violence and abuse towards his partner over several months. This included punching her through a pillow, repeated physical assaults, kidnapping, and forcing her to perform oral sex against her will. The court also noted Warren's history of domestic violence and other violent offences, which influenced the severity of the sentence. The court took into account Warren's recent efforts to address the causes of his offending, particularly his substance abuse and violent behaviour, as well as his willingness to engage in treatment while in prison. The court determined that a starting point of six years’ imprisonment was appropriate for the charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, adjusted upwards to eight years’ imprisonment to reflect the totality of Warren's offending. Further adjustments were made to account for his previous convictions and his guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of seven years and two months’ imprisonment.

Orders