Stanley v Police - [2023] NZHC 1879

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2023-443-12

[2023] NZHC 1879

BETWEEN
KYLE JORDAN STANLEY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 18 July 2023

Appearances:

P J Mooney for the Appellant R L Hicklin for the Respondent

Judgment:

18 July 2023

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PALMER

Solicitors
Mooney & Webb, New Plymouth C & M Legal, New Plymouth

STANLEY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 1879 [18 July 2023]

What happened?

[1] Around 10:15 pm on Friday 13 May 2022, Mr Kyle Stanley, aged 26, was deliberately stopping traffic from travelling through the Devon Street and Currie Street intersection, in downtown New Plymouth. Mr Sonntag, aged 58 and considerably smaller than Mr Stanley, got out of his vehicle and demanded Mr Stanley get off the road. Mr Stanley punched and kicked the car on the passenger side. After his wife parked the car on the side of the road, Mr Sonntag got out again and demanded an explanation. Mr Stanley punched Mr Sonntag several times in the head and body while Mr Sonntag held up his hand attempting to block the blows. Mr Stanley ran off when members of the public came to help Mr Sonntag. Mr Sonntag was knocked unconscious, bleeding from his head. He sustained a severe concussion, a large laceration on the back of his head, several smaller cuts to his face and body and bruising. The Sonntags have explained the long-term physical, financial, and mental impacts of the offending in their victim impact statements.

[2] Mr Stanley pleaded guilty to injuring with intent to injure which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. On 23 May 2023, Mr Stanley was sentenced by Judge Grieg in the District Court at New Plymouth.1 The Judge considered the offending sat within band 2 of the Nuku bands due to aggravating factors of attacking the head, significant injury and vulnerability of the victim and set a starting point of two years and 10 months’ imprisonment.2 He discounted that by something over 15 per cent for Mr Stanley pleading guilty seven months after the offending. He noted that Mr Stanley lost his mother at 16 and had care of his son every weekend but did not make any discount for that. Neither did he uplift the sentence for a previous minor assault.3 The end sentence was two years and four months’ imprisonment and a reparation order of $2,818. Mr Stanley appeals the sentence.

1 New Zealand Police v Stanley [2023] NZDC 6755.
2 At [30], citing Nuku v R [2012] NZCA 584, [2013] 2 NZLR 39.
3 At [7].

Submissions

[3] Mr Mooney, for Mr Stanley, points to two sentences for injuring with reckless disregard, and one for injuring with intent to injure, with lower starting points.4 He submits the starting point here was too high in comparison with other cases and should have been 18 to 20 months’ imprisonment. He submits the Judge erred in not…

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 Stanley v Police

Details

AGLC: Stanley v Police [2023] NZHC 1879
Case: [2023] NZHC 1879
Decision Date: 18 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kyle Jordan Stanley appealed against his sentence for injuring with intent to injure, which included two years and four months' imprisonment and a reparation order of $2,818. The sentencing judge had set a starting point of two years and 10 months' imprisonment within band 2 of the Nuku bands due to the aggravating factors of attacking the head, significant injury, and the vulnerability of the victim. The starting point was discounted by 15 per cent due to Mr Stanley pleading guilty seven months after the offence. The judge did not discount the sentence for the loss of Mr Stanley’s mother at 16 and his care of his son every weekend, and did not uplift the sentence for a previous minor assault. Mr Stanley argued that the starting point was too high and that the discount for his guilty plea should have been 25 per cent, not 15 per cent. He also argued that the judge should have sentenced him to home detention. The police argued that the case was similar to Burton v Police, where a starting point of two years and six months' imprisonment for injuring with intent to injure was upheld where there was provocation, and that home detention was not available.

The court found that the sentence was appropriately considered within band two of the Nuku bands, which has three or fewer aggravating factors and a starting point of up to three years' imprisonment. The court accepted the police's submission that Barton was more comparable to this offending than the cases cited by Mr Stanley. The court did not accept that a higher discount for the guilty plea was warranted, as Mr Stanley pleaded not guilty in July 2022 after appearing three times and failing to appear once in June and July 2022. The court considered that a discount of 15 per cent was well available. The court also found that a sentence of home detention was not available, even if it had been available, as the judge would have been open to concluding that imprisonment was an appropriate sentence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was within the available range and was not manifestly excessive. The court did not substitute its own views on appeal and did not intervene to substitute its own sentence.

Orders