R v Wickliffe-Brown - [2013] NZHC 940

NOTE: ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE VICTIM AND NAMES OF THE CHILDREN AT PARAGRAPH [27].

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI 2012-041-0220 [2013] NZHC 940

THE QUEEN

V

CANDICE WICKLIFFE-BROWN

Hearing: 26 April 2013

Counsel: K A Laurenson for Crown
R Fairbrother for Accused

Judgment: 26 April 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF WILLIAMS J

[1] Ms Wickliffe-Brown you appear today for sentencing on one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, you having pleaded guilty to that charge on 4 March 2013.

[2] The events surrounding your offence occurred on 25 January 2012. You were then in a rocky on again/off again relationship with your partner [A]. It appears you won some money on the pokies, and on the strength of that you had been drinking
for three days. As far as I can tell from the material that I have you had also been

R V CANDICE WICKLIFFE-BROWN HC NAP CRI 2012-041-0220 [26 April 2013]

smoking methamphetamine at some point during that time, and you had little sleep over several days.

[3] At home that night after a session at the pub you began to argue with one another over whether one or other of you had been unfaithful. A fight broke out and somehow you both ended up in the back yard in a tussle.

[4] The Crown says you hit [A] on the side of her head with a beer bottle, breaking the bottle. You deny this. Your lawyer says the medical evidence from Dr Jason identifies no evidence consistent with a blow from a bottle.

[5] On the view of matters that I take, it is probably unnecessary for me to resolve that dispute but in any event you then pinned [A] down, bit her on the arm (drawing blood), and punched her two or three times in the head and face – still drunk or fried or both. Angry and out of control, you then go into the kitchen and grab a boning knife with a 6 inch blade. You go back outside and you attack [A] with the knife. You stab her three times.

[6] Three wounds result: the first is a puncture on the left side of [A]’s body, a relatively minor puncture; the second is a stab wound around the middle of her torso, again relatively superficial; but the third is far more serious. That wound, that stab, pierces [A]’s left breast breaking her sternum and two ribs and cutting deep enough to puncture her left lung. At that point, others who were present stepped in, stopped you, called for an ambulance and the police. So by any standard Ms Wickliffe- Brown, this was a serious and dangerous episode of offending.

[7] So those are the facts. I am going to start at the starting point then address factors relating to you personally.

Starting point

[8] The Crown says because you had a knife and used it, because the attack was…

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 Wickliffe-Brown

Details

AGLC: R v Wickliffe-Brown [2013] NZHC 940
Case: [2013] NZHC 940
Decision Date: 26 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Napier Registry of the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Candice Wickliffe-Brown involved sentencing for a conviction of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The accused, Candice Wickliffe-Brown, had pleaded guilty to attacking her partner, [A], with a knife, resulting in serious injuries. The Crown argued for a starting point of five to six years in prison due to the use of a knife, premeditation, and the attack involving the head. In contrast, the defence contended that the attack was impulsive, not premeditated, and that the accused's history of behavioural disorders stemming from psychological injuries should reduce culpability.

The court acknowledged that while the attack involved a knife and some premeditation, the level of premeditation was minimal. The court accepted that the accused's history of psychological injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder, significantly influenced her behaviour. This led the court to reduce the starting point by six months, to four and a half years. Factors such as the accused's guilty plea, young age, and her efforts towards rehabilitation, including abstinence from drugs and alcohol and participation in support programs, were considered mitigating. Given these factors, the court sentenced the accused to 12 months of home detention, allowing her to continue her rehabilitation efforts and care for her children, while ensuring community safety.

The final orders included a warning under the three strikes legislation, emphasizing that any future serious violent offence would result in severe penalties, including imprisonment without parole. The sentence was set to commence on 29 April 2013.

Orders