Story v R - [2012] NZCA 98

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA409/2011
[2012] NZCA 98

BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER BARRIE STORY
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 22 February 2012

Court: Randerson, Potter and Simon France JJ

Counsel: K H Cook for Appellant
K Raftery for Respondent

Judgment: 16 March 2012 at 11.30 a.m.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The sentence appeal is allowed in part.

BThe appeal against the sentence of six years nine months imprisonment, and the minimum period of imprisonment of three years four months is dismissed.
CThe current reparation orders are quashed, and are replaced by an order of $500 in favour of each victim. Payments are to be made at the rate of $10 per week to each victim, commencing one calendar month after Mr Story’s release from imprisonment.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Simon France J)

Introduction

Mr Story appeals a sentence of six years nine months imprisonment imposed on two charges of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so. At the same time Judge Erber imposed a minimum non parole term of three years four months, and reparation of $5,000 to be paid to each of the two victims.[1]
[1] R v Story DC Rangiora CRI‑2011‑009‑2157, 10 June 2011.
All facets of the sentence, other than a starting point of nine years for the total offending, are challenged.

Facts

The victims, Mr and Mrs Douglas, are a married couple who live in Christchurch. One evening a neighbouring house was holding a party at which Mr Story was in attendance. The Douglas household awoke because of the noise. They heard someone laughing outside their property whilst discussing the theft of a pot plant. They went out to investigate.
Mr Story was the thief. Mr Douglas called out to him about the pot plant and Mr Story responded by running at him with a knife. Mr Douglas avoided the blow, and he, his wife and their son who was with them ran back to their enclosed property, shutting the gate. However, Mr Story pursued them. He barged the gate, forcing it open.
Mr Story first caught up with Mrs Douglas. He attacked her savagely, stabbing her no less than six times, with two being to the back. Mr Douglas rushed over to help and placed Mr Story in a headlock. He was stabbed in the shoulder, the knife going all the way through his body. Eventually the son hit Mr Story with an object, which caused Mr Story to desist.
The consequences have been severe. Immediately, Mrs Douglas suffered a punctured liver, and severe muscle damage in the area of her chest and shoulder. Longer term, she is still unable to lift her arm above shoulder height. Mr Douglas required surgery but has recovered.
The couple found themselves unable to remain in their home because of the psychological impact of the attack. The address to which they relocated was then substantially damaged in the earthquake. They were forced to move again. Everything is much harder, work…

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 Story v R

Details

AGLC: Story v R [2012] NZCA 98
Case: [2012] NZCA 98
Decision Date: 16 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Story v R, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand reviewed the sentence imposed on Christopher Barrie Story, who was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so. The victims were Mr and Mrs Douglas, who were attacked by Story after confronting him about the theft of a pot plant. The trial judge imposed a sentence of six years nine months imprisonment, a minimum non-parole term of three years four months, and reparation of $5,000 to each of the victims. Story appealed the sentence, arguing that the mitigation, minimum term of imprisonment, and reparation were excessive.

The Court of Appeal considered the issues of mitigation, the minimum term of imprisonment, and reparation. The Court found that while the trial judge did not consider all mitigating factors when assessing the sentence, the final sentence of six years nine months imprisonment was not excessive. The Court also found that the minimum term of imprisonment was appropriate given the chilling nature of the offending. Finally, the Court held that the reparation order was too high and quashed the current order, replacing it with an order of $500 in favour of each victim, to be paid at the rate of $10 per week to each victim, commencing one calendar month after Story’s release from imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the sentence appeal in part, dismissing the appeal against the sentence of six years nine months imprisonment and the minimum period of imprisonment of three years four months. The Court quashed the current reparation orders and replaced them with an order of $500 in favour of each victim, with payments to be made at the rate of $10 per week to each victim, commencing one calendar month after Story’s release from imprisonment.

Orders