Samaeli v The King - [2024] NZHC 441

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-409-232

[2024] NZHC 441

BETWEEN
WAYLON SAMAELI

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 15 February 2024

Appearances:

A M S Williams & K N Stitely for Appellant L Fiennes for Respondent

Judgment:

5 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF PRESTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 March 2024 at pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

SAMAELI v R [2024] NZHC 441 [5 March 2024]

Introduction

[1] In February 2023 Waylon Samaeli was an inmate at Christchurch Mens Prison. Together with four other men he took part in a premeditated group attack on Corrections officers in their unit.

[2] Mr Samaeli accepted a sentence indication from Judge Crosbie and pleaded guilty to two charges of assault with intent to injure.1 On 18 October 2023, the Judge sentenced Mr Samaeli to 16 months’ imprisonment.2 It is against this decision he now appeals.

[3] Mr Samaeli says that as a result of a difference in the methodology adopted at sentencing an erroneous sentence was imposed which requires correction.

[4] It is common ground that the sentencing Judge departed in some respects from his earlier indication, however the appellant does not wish to vacate his plea and be re-sentenced.3 Accordingly, this Court must determine whether that departure has resulted in an end-sentence imposed which is manifestly excessive.

The offending

[5] I adopt the outline of the offending from the District Court Judge’s sentencing notes, as follows:4

The four of you were housed within the Matai 2 unit. At about 4 pm on 28 February you were brought to the unit to go back into your cells for dinner. At that time, you were allowed some personal time to receive mail and the like before being placed back in your cells.

The victims in the matter, Corrections officers working on Matai 2 were known, obviously, to all of you. At 4.16pm Mr Strickland and Mr Samaeli were speaking with the first of the Corrections officers, referred to as victim
1. Whilst speaking with him and looking at Mr Samaeli, Mr Strickland came from his left and punched him in the right-side of his face with his left hand. He was dazed and possibly briefly knocked out. When he has recovered consciousness, he immediately backed away from Mr Strickland and put his hands in the air. Mr Strickland continued to strike which included a series of punches to the face and kicks to the legs.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2) – maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
2      R v Samaeli [2023] NZDC 23078.
3      Williams v R [2021] NZCA 54.
4      R v Samaeli, above n 2, at [3] – [10].

At the time Mr Strickland started the assault on victim 1, victim 2 and a third Corrections officer were standing at the bottom of the stairs situated at the back of the unit dealing with some…

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 Samaeli v The King

Details

AGLC: Samaeli v The King [2024] NZHC 441
Case: [2024] NZHC 441
Decision Date: 5 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Samaeli v The King involves an appeal against the sentence imposed on Waylon Samaeli, who was convicted of two counts of assault with intent to injure in relation to a premeditated attack on Corrections officers while he was an inmate at Christchurch Mens Prison. Samaeli accepted a sentence indication and pleaded guilty to the charges. The sentencing Judge, Judge Crosbie, initially indicated a sentence of 22 months' imprisonment, but at the sentencing hearing, imposed a sentence of 16 months' imprisonment. Samaeli appealed the sentence on the grounds that the Judge departed from the sentence indication in several material respects, resulting in an increased sentence.

The legal issues in the appeal were whether the departure from the sentence indication constituted an error and whether the error resulted in a sentence that was manifestly excessive. The Court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the Judge was within the range that could properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles or whether it was so excessive that it warranted correction.

The Court found that the Judge had indeed departed from the sentence indication in three material respects. The starting point was incorrectly set at 24 months instead of 22 months, no uplift was applied for previous convictions as indicated, and the youth discount was omitted entirely. While the Crown argued that the end sentence before totality adjustment was not materially different, the Court found that the omission of the youth discount, which the Judge had indicated, led to an end sentence greater than that intended. The Court also found that the totality adjustment was appropriate in the circumstances and reduced it to two months.

The appeal was allowed, and the end sentence was reduced to 15 months' imprisonment on each of the two offences, cumulative on Samaeli's current sentence. The Court applied the sentencing methodology as indicated by the Judge and afforded the additional youth discount of 10 per cent, yielding an end sentence before totality of 17.5 months. The Court then made a corrected totality adjustment of two months, resulting in an end sentence of 15 months.

Orders