Sorensen v The Queen - [2020] NZHC 2982

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CRI-2020-476-000016

[2020] NZHC 2982

BETWEEN
CLINT HUIA SORENSEN

Appellant

AND

R

Respondent

Hearing: 03 November 2020

Counsel:

A L Hollingworth and C A Twyman for the Appellant H V Bennett for the Respondent

Judgment:

11 November 2020

JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J

Introduction

[1] Mr Clint Huia Sorensen appeals against a sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Maze in the District Court at Timaru 6 August 2020,1 for one charge of robbery (representative).2

[2]The appeal is brought on the following grounds:

(a)the Judge erred by giving an inadequate discount for personal mitigating factors, in particular by failing to adequately consider Mr Sorensen’s cultural report under s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002; and

1 R v Sorensen [2020] NZDC 15691.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 234(1); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

SORENSEN v R [2020] NZHC 2982 [11 November 2020]

(b)the District Court Judge erred by failing to have regard to parity with the co-offender’s end sentence of 23 months’ imprisonment, with leave to apply for home detention.

[3] Mr Sorensen submitted that these errors led to the imposition of an end sentence that was manifestly excessive.

[4] The Crown submitted that the Judge made no errors, and that the end sentence imposed was within the range available .

Background

[5] At around 7 pm on 10 January 2019, Mr Sorensen and his co-offender, Ms Nikelle Richmond-Henke, travelled by car to the home address of Ms K in Timaru. Ms M was also present at Ms K’s address. Mr Sorensen and Ms Richmond-Henke knew Ms K, and were angry about an earlier dispute.

[6] On arrival, Mr Sorensen and Ms Richmond-Henke entered the address through the backdoor and met Ms K in the hallway. Ms K picked up a samurai sword from a bedroom and come back into the hallway, brandishing it. Mr Sorensen picked up a can of bourbon that was in the hallway and threw it at Ms K’s face. Her vision was temporarily affected due to the liquid from the can getting into her eyes.

[7] Ms K continued to brandish the samurai sword. Mr Sorensen picked up a chainsaw that was in the hallway and used it strike the sword away from Ms K. Ms Richmond-Henke then tackled Ms K to the ground, pinning her down and cutting her hair with scissors. Mr Sorensen turned the chainsaw on (it was accepted that it was missing a chain) and approached Ms K, who was wrestling with Ms Richmond- Henke on the ground. Mr Sorensen told Ms K to leave some mutual associates alone.

[8] Ms Richmond-Henke then stood up and met Ms M in the hallway, and threatened her with a weapon while pushing her forehead up against Ms M’s forehead. Ms Richmond-Henke then returned to Ms K, who was still on the ground.

[9] Mr Sorensen and Ms Richmound-Henke then entered Ms K’s bedroom and took a…

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 Sorensen v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Sorensen v The Queen [2020] NZHC 2982
Case: [2020] NZHC 2982
Decision Date: 11 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sorensen v The Queen involved Clint Huia Sorensen appealing against a 27-month imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Court for a charge of robbery. Sorensen contended that the District Court Judge made errors in discounting personal mitigating factors, particularly by not adequately considering a cultural report under the Sentencing Act 2002. He also argued that the sentence should have reflected parity with his co-offender's sentence of 23 months, with leave to apply for home detention. The appeal was based on the argument that these errors resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the District Court Judge erred in the discount applied for personal mitigating factors and whether the sentence should reflect parity with the co-offender's sentence. The court had to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive and not justified by relevant sentencing principles.

The High Court found that the District Court Judge did not err in conflating the personal mitigating factors of both offenders, as she had given separate and close attention to each offender's factors. However, the court did find that the Judge erred in giving insufficient discount for Sorensen's cultural background and prospects for rehabilitation, as well as for his expression of remorse. The court considered that Sorensen's difficult life, characterized by abuse, trauma, and racism, and his efforts at rehabilitation warranted a discount of 20 per cent and five per cent respectively. Regarding parity, the court found that the Judge had correctly applied the principles of parity as outlined in R v Kohey, and applying a further discount to Sorensen would not have been in accordance with those principles.

The appeal was allowed, and Sorensen's end sentence was substituted for one of two years' imprisonment, with leave granted to apply for home detention.

Orders