Ryan-Thoms v R - [2013] NZCA 518

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA499/2013
[2013] NZCA 518

BETWEEN	DANNY SHANE RYAN-THOMS Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	1 October 2013
Court:	O’Regan P, Panckhurst and MacKenzie JJ
Counsel:	F E Guy-Kidd for Appellant M A J Elliott and M A V Raj for Respondent
Judgment:	24 October 2013 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.

BThe appeal against a sentence of four and a half years imprisonment is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Panckhurst J)

The issue

The appellant challenges a sentence of four and a half years imprisonment imposed in relation to offences of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and wounding with intent to injure.[1] The two charges arose from a single attack, but committed against different complainants. The essential basis of the appeal is that the Judge adopted excessive starting points in relation to the separate offences and that this skewed the end sentence.
[1]R v Ryan DC Invercargill CRI-2012-025-1120, 17 May 2013.
The notice of appeal was filed out of time as a result of confusion with reference to a grant of legal aid to counsel. Mr Elliott indicated at the outset that no prejudice had resulted, and that the extension was not opposed. Accordingly we grant the application for an extension of time to appeal.

The offending

We shall refer to the complainants by their christian names, Juanita and Jaymie. At about 2.00 am on 22 April 2012 the complainants were on the roadside at an intersection in Bluff. The appellant stopped his car adjacent to the complainants and offered them a lift. However, an argument began between the appellant’s partner, who was a passenger in the car, and the complainants.
The appellant got out of his vehicle. He approached Jaymie and punched her several times in the head. Her companion, Juanita intervened. She was punched three times in the face. At this point Jaymie stepped in and was struck twice causing her to fall to the ground. The appellant then kicked her in the face before she could get up. At this point members of the public arrived and intervened.
Juanita sustained a broken eye socket. She required reconstructive surgery to aid her recuperation. Jaymie received even more serious injuries. Her jaw was broken in three places. She too required surgery, and three plates were screwed into place to stabilise the fractures. She required follow-up surgery to remove the plates.
When interviewed the appellant stated that one of the complainants had thrown a bottle at his car and he acted to defend his property. He told the police that he was attacked and he pushed the complainants, causing them to fall which in turn caused their facial injuries. The appellant denied punching and kicking the complainants. However, at trial he pleaded guilty to the charges.

Personal circumstances

The appellant is aged 27 years. He is a fisherman by occupation. He has…

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 Ryan-Thoms v R

Details

AGLC: Ryan-Thoms v R [2013] NZCA 518
Case: [2013] NZCA 518
Decision Date: 24 October 2013 at 2 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the New Zealand Court of Appeal, the appellant, Danny Shane Ryan-Thoms, contested the sentence of four and a half years imprisonment imposed for charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and wounding with intent to injure. The appeal was dismissed, and the application for an extension of time to appeal was granted. The two charges stemmed from a single violent incident where the appellant attacked two women, Juanita and Jaymie, causing severe injuries.

The appellant argued that the starting points for both offences were excessively high, that there was no allowance for remorse, and that the court did not consider the fact that he was subject to an overnight curfew for 11 months. The court found that while there was some merit in the argument that the starting points were too high, the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Judge had identified multiple aggravating factors, including extreme violence and serious injuries caused, which justified a high starting point. The court acknowledged that the Judge could have considered the mitigating factors more thoroughly but concluded that the sentence, after adjustments for totality, guilty pleas, and reparation, was appropriate.

The court reasoned that the appellant's history of violence and the gravity of the crimes warranted a stern sentence. Despite some criticisms of the Judge's analysis, the court determined that the sentence was proportionate to the nature of the offending. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence upheld. The court ordered that Juanita be paid $2,000 and Jaymie $1,000 in reparation for the harm caused.

Orders