Samuels v Police - [2024] NZHC 2061

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-409-000110

[2024] NZHC 2061

BETWEEN
SHAWN TONY SAMUELS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 18 July 2024

Appearances:

H C Coutts on behalf of J Tupaea for Appellant W J S Mohammed for Respondent

Judgment:

26 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF PRESTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 July 2024 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

SAMUELS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 2061 [26 July 2024]

Introduction

[1] Mr Shawn Samuels pleaded guilty to one charge of injuring with intent to injure.1 On 23 April 2024, Judge O’Driscoll sentenced Mr Samuels to two years three months’ imprisonment.2 Mr Samuels appeals that sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive and should be replaced by a sentence of home detention or community detention.

The offending

[2] The offending involved a two-hour attack by Mr Samuels and a co-offender, Ms Martin-Tihi, against one victim. The victim was unknown to Ms Martin-Tihi but had known Mr Samuels for six years. The victim was in a relationship with Mr Samuels’ younger sister at the time. Both the victim and Mr Samuels’ sister were and continue to be under the care of Hohepa Care due to their intellectual disabilities.

[3] Just before midnight on 30 September 2023, Mr Samuels and Ms Martin-Tihi arrived outside the victim’s home address. They approached the victim and began to yell at him. The argument escalated and Mr Samuels punched the victim in the face. He and Ms Martin-Tihi then entered the victim’s address. Mr Samuels spoke to the victim’s flatmate and said he was about to fuck the victim up. Mr Samuels and Ms Martin-Tihi told the victim to come with them and they left the victim’s address in a vehicle driven by an associate.

[4] The victim sat in the rear middle seat between the two co-offenders. Ms Martin-Tihi punched the victim multiple times in the head and face as they drove to an address on Hampshire Street, Christchurch. Mr Samuels and Ms Martin-Tihi took the victim to a garage at the address and told him to sit on a couch. Ms Martin- Tihi punched the victim in the face multiple times while she was sitting next to him.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
2 Police v Samuels [2024] NZDC 9096.

[5] The victim ran from the address, but Mr Samuels and Ms Martin-Tihi followed him. Mr Samuels approached the victim and punched him in the face, causing him to fall to the ground. Mr Samuels lifted the victim up by the front scruff of his hoodie and pushed him back to the ground.3

[6] The co-offenders told the victim to get into the car. Ms Martin-Tihi punched the victim multiple times in the face and bit him on the wrist. The victim was taken back to the same address and…

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 Samuels v Police

Details

AGLC: Samuels v Police [2024] NZHC 2061
Case: [2024] NZHC 2061
Decision Date: 26 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Shawn Tony Samuels appealed against his two-year-three-month imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge O’Driscoll for injuring with intent to injure. Samuels contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should be replaced by a sentence of home detention or community detention. The Court considered the arguments focusing on the culpability of the appellant, the appropriate starting point, and the discounts applied to the sentence. The Crown argued that the sentence was within the available range and the discounts were appropriate.

The Court concluded that the starting point was appropriate, considering the prolonged and concerted nature of the offending against a vulnerable victim. The Court rejected the argument that the appellant’s culpability was significantly different from his co-offender, noting that both were equally involved in the sustained attack. The Court also found that the discount for youth and the absence of prior convictions was within the mid-range and appropriate. While acknowledging that ADHD could make imprisonment more difficult for Samuels, the Court determined that no additional discount was warranted due to his untreated condition and lack of remorse. The Court held that no error was disclosed in the sentencing process, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders