STEPHEN PARKINSON AND THE KING - [2024] NZHC 2853

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2024-416-000014 [2024] NZHC 2853

BETWEEN
STEPHEN PARKINSON

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 17 September 2024

Appearances:

M J Lynch for Appellant D Dhir for Crown

Judgment:

1 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF BOLDT J

[1] On 3 July 2024 Judge W P Cathcart sentenced the appellant, Mr Stephen Parkinson, to two years and two months’ imprisonment.1 Mr Parkinson had pleaded guilty to charges of wounding with intent to injure,2 and intentional damage.3

[2] Mr Parkinson appeals against his sentence. He argues the Judge applied an excessive uplift for his previous convictions, extended inadequate credit for his plea of guilty and was wrong to decline a further discount for his belated expressions of remorse.

1      R v Parkinson [2024] NZDC 15381 [Decision under appeal].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2). Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 269(2)(a). Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

PARKINSON v R [2024] NZHC 2853 [1 October 2024]

Background

[3]There is no dispute about the facts; Judge Cathcart set them out as follows:4

[3] Sometime after 7 pm on 21 September 2023, you arrived at a property on Hansford Court, Gisborne. One of the occupants was home at the time watching television. He is the first victim here. He was the owner of a Hyundai Sonata.

[4] After getting out of your own vehicle … you were seen smashing the Hyundai Sonata parked on the roadside at the time. You used a tomahawk to smash the windows. You saw the first victim looking through a window. You yelled out: “Fuck you, Ricky”, before getting back in your car and leaving.

[5] A short time later, you returned to that property with approximately five associates. The second victim had just arrived at the address and was standing outside the house. You got out of the vehicle and approached the second victim whilst holding a tomahawk in your right hand. With full force, you struck the second victim with the tomahawk, connecting with his left arm.

[6] There was some discussion today about whether that incident occurred on the property or not. That is relevant to an assessment as to whether there was an “invasion” of the property. It is accepted by both parties now that the incident occurred on the driveway, therefore, on the property itself.

[7] … Having struck the second victim, unsurprisingly he ran from the property in an attempt to get away from you and your associates. … There is no suggestion the others got involved in the violence. They are described as associates, whatever that actually means. But it is a relevant background factor here that you returned to the address when this incident had occurred, not alone, but with five associates who later chased the second victim. To the second victim, that would have been perceived as strength in presence of numbers.

[8] Eventually returning to their respective cars, the group yelled various Mongrel Mob slogans…

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 STEPHEN PARKINSON AND THE KING

Details

AGLC: STEPHEN PARKINSON AND THE KING [2024] NZHC 2853
Case: [2024] NZHC 2853
Decision Date: 1 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Stephen Parkinson and the King was heard. Mr Stephen Parkinson, the appellant, was sentenced by Judge W P Cathcart to two years and two months' imprisonment for charges of wounding with intent to injure and intentional damage. Mr Parkinson appealed his sentence, arguing that the Judge applied an excessive uplift for his previous convictions, extended inadequate credit for his plea of guilty, and was wrong to decline a further discount for his belated expressions of remorse.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Judge's application of the uplift for previous convictions and credit for the plea of guilty were appropriate, and whether the Judge should have extended a discrete discount for remorse. The court considered the established principles of sentencing, including the requirement to dismiss an appeal unless there was a manifest error in the sentence.

The court found that while the starting point selected by the Judge was at the lowest end of the available range, the numerous aggravating factors in the case justified the sentence. The court agreed with the Judge's assessment of the credit for the plea of guilty and the uplift for previous convictions. It was also open to the Judge to decline a discrete credit for remorse, given the belated and potentially self-serving nature of Mr Parkinson's expressions of regret. The court concluded that the appeal must fail as the final sentence was reasonably available.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders