R v Wilson - [2015] NZHC 900

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2014-057-1570 [2015] NZHC 900

THE QUEEN

v

ROBERT JONATHAN WILSON

Hearing: 1 May 2015

Counsel:

J Shaw for Crown
P Borich for Defendant

Judgment:

1 May 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Counsel:
P Borich, Auckland

R v WILSON [2015] NZHC 900 [1 May 2015]

Introduction

[1] Robert Jonathan Wilson, you appear for sentence today on one charge of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, one of assault with a weapon, and one of cultivating cannabis. You pleaded guilty to all three of those offences. You have already been given a first strike warning on the wounding charge.

[2] The seriousness of offending of this type can be seen from the maximum penalties which are available to impose:

(a) 14 years imprisonment on the wounding charge

(b) Five years imprisonment on the assault with a weapon charge; and

(c) Seven years imprisonment on the cannabis charge.

[3] The summary of facts, on the basis of which you pleaded guilty to the offences, reveals very disturbing conduct on your behalf. The words in the summary of facts paint a picture of a man who was unable to control violent urges and who reacted excessively to actions of others. That impression is supported by the CCTV footage that I saw this morning, and I will refer again to that later.

[4] Even assuming that there was provocation of the type to which Mr Borich, on your behalf, has referred, both in the context of the altercation that occurred at the start of the events in issue and perhaps also in relation to what the two victims were doing when they were at the foot of the boat-ramp and when your car was parked at the top, the reaction that you showed was grossly disproportionate to any provocation that was given. The fact that you waited in your vehicle for some time before driving suggests a considered action; not an impulse to respond to provocation. That reflects the guilty plea you have entered to the charge of intentionally wounding someone with intent to do serious harm.

Facts

[5] In broad outline, at about 4.45pm on 20 October 2014, you arrived at a boat- ramp situated at “The Elbow” on the Waikato River. You were planning to launch your boat to go white-baiting. Around the same time, Mr Troy Hughes and Mr David Ashton were returning to the ramp. You and the victims have adjoining white- baiting stands near Motutieke Island, on the river.

[6] I accept that an altercation occurred. It appears to have been about a historical grievance involving the location of white-baiting stands. There were occasions during that when a knife was produced. You returned to your vehicle, reversed it up the boat-ramp and then drove around on the gravel in the carpark area apparently at some speed.

[7] After your car had remained stationary for a while, you drove the vehicle down…

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson [2015] NZHC 900
Case: [2015] NZHC 900
Decision Date: 1 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wilson, the defendant, Robert Jonathan Wilson, appeared before the Auckland Registry of the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing on charges of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and cultivating cannabis. The court accepted Wilson's guilty pleas to all charges, noting the maximum penalties for each offence, which were 14 years for wounding with intent, five years for assault with a weapon, and seven years for cultivating cannabis. The court reviewed the disturbing conduct of Wilson, which included using his vehicle to intentionally harm two individuals, indicating a premeditated and disproportionate response to the situation.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for Wilson's serious offences, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors. The court examined the extreme violence displayed by Wilson, the significant harm inflicted on the victims, and the lack of genuine remorse shown by Wilson. The court also considered Wilson's prior criminal history, which included spent or irrelevant convictions, and his guilty pleas, which entitled him to a 25% reduction in sentence. The court had to balance these factors against the need to deter similar conduct and to reflect the totality of Wilson's offending.

The court concluded that the starting point for Wilson's sentence was six years imprisonment, which was then reduced by 25% due to his guilty pleas, resulting in a sentence of four years and six months for the wounding and assault charges. For the cannabis charge, the court set a starting point of three years imprisonment, reduced by 25% for guilty pleas, leading to a sentence of two years and three months. The court ordered these sentences to be served concurrently, except for the cannabis charge, which was to be served cumulatively. The court declined to impose a disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence, given the likely term of imprisonment. Finally, the court discharged Wilson on two additional charges of assault with a weapon and possession of a firearm, effectively treating these charges as acquitted.

Orders