R v Wheble - [2022] NZHC 2730

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-044-3577

[2022] NZHC 2730

THE KING

v

ANTHONY JOHN WHEBLE

Hearing: 20 October 2022

Appearances:

M Nathan for Crown

D Hoskin for Defendant

Judgment:

20 October 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Steindle Williams Legal Limited, Auckland

R v WHEBLE [2022] NZHC 2730 [20 October 2022]

[1] Mr Wheble, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted murder.1 The maximum sentence for that offence is 14 years imprisonment.

Background

[2] You have pleaded guilty on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. This records that you are currently serving a sentence of seven years imprisonment on another charge of attempted murder to which you pleaded guilty in 2019. That offence was also committed whilst you were in prison. You are required to serve the full term of that sentence because it was a “second strike” offence. Furthermore, you are serving the sentence cumulatively on a sentence of four years six months imprisonment imposed on 30 October 2015 on charges of aggravated robbery and assault with intent to rob. Your current release date is in November 2026.

[3] The current charge arises from events that occurred on 12 January 2020 when you were in the exercise yard at Auckland Prison. The victim of your offending was also present in the yard. He had both lower legs in plaster due to an unrelated injury he had sustained earlier. He was sitting on the ground and leaning up against a wall.

[4] You were pacing up and down and occasionally talking to the victim. You then walked up to him and kicked him in the forehead. This caused him to slump to the ground in a defenceless state. You then lifted his head and repeatedly stabbed him in the face with a shank, or weapon, made from a toothbrush with a disposable razorblade inserted in the end. You then let go of his head, took a step back and proceeded to kick him in the head on five occasions.

[5] By this stage the victim was unconscious and had slumped to the ground. You held his head up with one hand and cut both his eyelids with the shank. You then stabbed him in the face on 14 occasions. When the victim slumped over onto his left side, you repeatedly sliced the right side of his neck, causing a deep laceration above his carotid artery, ten centimetres in length. Not satisfied with this, you stepped back and kicked the victim in the head on a further seven occasions.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 173.

[6] Corrections staff then entered the yard and you ceased your assault. You were searched and found to be in possession of two shanks. The assault on the victim lasted for approximately a minute and was recorded in full by CCTV cameras.

[7]As a result of the attack the victim received numerous…

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 Wheble

Details

AGLC: R v Wheble [2022] NZHC 2730
Case: [2022] NZHC 2730
Decision Date: 20 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Anthony John Wheble faced sentencing for an attempted murder charge committed while he was imprisoned. Wheble had previously been convicted of a similar offence in 2019, for which he was serving a seven-year sentence. The court had to determine whether Wheble should receive a finite sentence or an indeterminate sentence of preventive detention. The court considered various factors, including Wheble's history of violent offending, the severity of the current attack, and his potential risk to the community upon release. Wheble's history showed a pattern of serious violent offending, particularly in prison settings, and he had not engaged in any meaningful rehabilitation efforts. The court concluded that a finite sentence would not adequately protect the community, given Wheble's high risk of reoffending. Consequently, the court sentenced Wheble to preventive detention, with a minimum term of five years before eligibility for parole.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the likelihood of Wheble committing further violent offences, as indicated by his criminal history and the assessments of health professionals. Reports from a psychologist and a psychiatrist highlighted Wheble's very high risk of violent reoffending, both in prison and outside. They noted that Wheble's violent tendencies were deeply ingrained and unlikely to change without significant therapeutic intervention. The court found that preventive detention was necessary to ensure Wheble would engage in such interventions, providing him with an incentive to address the underlying causes of his offending. This approach aimed to mitigate the risk he posed to the community and offer a path toward potential rehabilitation.

Orders