Skye v The King - [2024] NZHC 1925

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2024-419-48

[2024] NZHC 1925

SOPHIE LEE SKYE

v

THE KING

Hearing: 9 July 2024

Appearances:

W T Nabney for Applicant A Alcock for Crown

Judgment:

12 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 July 2024 at 3.30pm,

………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Hamilton Legal
W T Nabney, Tauranga Chambers

SKYE v R [2024] NZHC 1925

Introduction

[1] Ms Sophie Skye pleaded guilty in the District Court at Hamilton to charges of kidnapping,1 assault with a weapon,2 and demanding with menaces.3 She was sentenced by Judge P P Crayton to two years and two months’ imprisonment on 3 May 2024.4

[2] She now appeals her sentence on the grounds that the starting point adopted was excessive given her role in respect of the lead offending (the kidnapping), that insufficient credit was given for her guilty pleas, and that the end sentence is manifestly excessive as a result.

The facts

[3] Ms Skye managed a business in Hamilton where a burglary occurred in September 2019. Tools and other items were stolen, some of them belonging to one of Ms Skye’s co-defendants, Mr Cousins. Ms Skye did not engage with the police investigation and instead conducted her own inquiries, ultimately concluding that the victim, Mr Terrey, was responsible. It is a matter of available inference that she informed various associates, including Mr Cousins, of this conclusion.

[4] On 30 November 2019 Mr Terrey, who resided in Whakatāne with his parents, drove to Hamilton to visit his 4-year-old son. While in Hamilton, he made arrangements with another of Ms Skye’s co-defendants, Ms Kaihana-King, to buy methamphetamine from her. He rendezvoused at her home, where Mr Cousins also resided, in the early hours of 1 December 2019. Once he was on his way Ms Kaihana- King sent a message to Mr Cousins saying Mr Terrey’s arrival was imminent and Mr Cousins advised Ms Skye that this was the case. He sent a further text to her confirming Mr Terrey’s arrival, to which Ms Skye replied “on my way … make sure car empty”.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 209. Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, s 202C. Maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, s 239. Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4      R v Skye [2024] NZDC 9863.

[5] Mr Terrey arrived at the address at 12.39 am and was directed to the garage where Mr Cousins slept. Ms Skye arrived at 12.45 am with a baseball bat. She confronted Mr Terrey in the garage in respect of the burglary she believed he had committed. She assaulted him multiple times with the baseball bat, causing heavy bruising to his arms, legs, back and torso. She made Mr Terrey empty his pockets, and the keys to his parent’s vehicle and his cellphone were taken from him. After finding his wallet empty, she told him he had better “fucking sort it…

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 Skye v The King

Details

AGLC: Skye v The King [2024] NZHC 1925
Case: [2024] NZHC 1925
Decision Date: 12 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Skye v The King involves Sophie Lee Skye appealing her sentence for kidnapping, assault with a weapon, and demanding with menaces. Skye was sentenced to two years and two months' imprisonment by Judge P P Crayton in the District Court at Hamilton. The appeal focuses on the excessiveness of the starting point, the adequacy of the guilty plea discount, and the overall excessiveness of the sentence.

The key legal issues were whether the starting point of three years was excessive, if the guilty plea discount was appropriate, and if the final sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court assessed the starting point in the context of Ms Skye’s role in the offences, noting her significant involvement and control over the situation. The Court found that the starting point was justified and within the appropriate range. Regarding the guilty plea discount, the Court determined that a 15% discount was more appropriate given the Crown's evolving case and the significant delay in the guilty plea. The Court also considered the overall sentence, noting that a two-month reduction brought the sentence close to the threshold where home detention could be considered.

The Court allowed the appeal and substituted the sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment with a sentence of two years’ imprisonment. The Court also granted leave for the appellant to apply to the District Court to commute the sentence to one of home detention, considering the sensitivity of the final sentence to small discount adjustments.

Orders