NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF ANY COMPLAINANTS, PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS [OR NAMED WITNESS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE] PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF RESPONDENT PROHIBITED BY SS
202(2)(D) AND 200(2)(F) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
KIRIKIRIROA ROHE
CRI-2017-419-000045 [2017] NZHC 2252
BETWEEN
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF NEW
ZEALAND Appellant
AND
SC Respondent
Hearing:
11 August 2017
Counsel:
I Murray for Appellant G Boot for Respondent
Judgment:
18 September 2017
JUDGMENT OF WHATA J
This judgment was delivered by me on 18 September 2017 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date: ………………………….
Solicitors: Crown Law, Wellington
Gavin Boot Law
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND v SC [2017] NZHC 2252 [18 September 2017]
Introduction
[1] The Solicitor-General appeals against the sentence imposed on SC in the Hamilton District Court on 29 May 2017.1 Judge Burnett sentenced him to seven months’ home detention, 150 hours community work and six months’ release conditions on multiple charges of violence involving his partner and her children.
[2] The Solicitor-General contends the sentence is manifestly inadequate given the nature and level of violence meted out by SC.
Background
[3] The charges arise from offending between April 2013 and September 2015, when SC and N were in a relationship. They lived together with N’s three children from a previous relationship, E (11), L (9) and T (14). It is a time marred by SC’s violence toward N and her children.
[4] The Crown provided a table summarising the charges (and related offending)
to which SC pleaded guilty. It is not disputed.
[5] In summary, he pleaded guilty to the following charges: (a) two charges of assault with a weapon;2
(b) three representative charges of assaulting a child;3
(c) two charges of injuring with reckless disregard;4
(d) one charge of male assaults female;5 and
(e) two charges of assault with intent to injure.6
1 R v SC [2017] NZDC 11223.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 202C. The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
3 Section 194(a). The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.
4 Section 189(2). The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
5 Section 194(b). The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.
[6] The assault with a weapon charges both relate to offending against E. On the first occasion, SC became angry at E because of his behaviour at school. He instructed him to pull down his pants and face a wall. He then used an electric cord to whip him three times, which resulted in bruising. The second charge arises from an occasion in which SC punished E by hitting him on the bottom and back region using a wooden pool cue.
[7] The three assault on a child charges are representative, relating to offending…
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 Solicitor-General v SC
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Solicitor-General v SC [2017] NZHC 2252
Case
[2017] NZHC 2252
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Solicitor-General appeals against the sentence imposed on SC by the District Court. The District Court sentenced SC to seven months' home detention, 150 hours of community work, and six months of release conditions, on multiple charges of violence involving his partner and her children. The Solicitor-General contends the sentence is manifestly inadequate given the nature and level of violence meted out by SC. The court found that the District Court erred in fixing a starting point, giving an excessive and unspecified discount for time spent on bail, and commuting imprisonment to home detention when a term of imprisonment was appropriate. The court found that a starting point of three years was justified, given the number and type of aggravating features that were present. The court also found that the discount for time spent on bail was appropriate, but the discount for a guilty plea was too high. The court found that the sentence of home detention was manifestly inadequate and should have been the maximum available, given the type and scale of offending. The court set aside the sentence of seven months' home detention and 150 hours of community work, and imposed a sentence of 12 months' home detention together with the six months' release conditions imposed by the District Court Judge.