Legal Research
Cases
Taylor-Rountree v The King

Taylor-Rountree v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 2340 21 August 2024

Sentencing

Mitigating Factors

Psychological Evidence

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

Rehabilitation

Home Detention

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2024-485-000040

[2024] NZHC 2340

BETWEEN
DARCY JASON TAYLOR-ROUNTREE

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 20 August 2024

Counsel:

R M Gould for Appellant M A Heslip for Respondent

Judgment:

21 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

(Appeal against Sentence)

Introduction and summary

[1] Darcy Taylor-Rountree, aged 27, appeals against his sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment imposed on 12 April 2024,1 on charges of injuring with intent to injure,2 and injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.3

[2] I allow the appeal on the basis that there is a material error in the sentence imposed that has come to light on appeal with the admission of a psychological report detailing Mr Taylor-Rountree’s diagnosed mental disorder that materially contributed to his offending. Overall credit for personal mitigating circumstances should be 30 per cent, resulting in an end sentence of one year and 11 months’ imprisonment.

1      R v Taylor-Rountree [2024] NZDC 8163 [Sentencing decision].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, s 189(1); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

TAYLOR-ROUNTREE v R [2024] NZHC 2340 [21 August 2024]

The principles of rehabilitation and reintegration, and community protection, are best served by a non-custodial sentence in Mr Taylor-Rountree’s particular circumstances. Nine months’ home detention is the least restrictive sentence appropriate, with special post-detention conditions requiring attendance at counselling.

Background

[3] I previously outlined the background to this matter in my reasons for allowing Mr Taylor-Rountree’s appeal against the refusal to grant bail pending this sentence appeal on 23 May 2024 as follows:4
The offending

[3] Mr Taylor-Rountree’s offending occurred at around 9:20pm on Saturday 29 October 2022. The two male victims had been to a restaurant and were waiting on the street for an Uber. Mr Taylor-Rountree and his partner were walking down the street. There was a verbal confrontation. It seems it started because Mr Taylor-Rountree and his partner were arguing and a comment was made by one of the victims along the lines that Mr Taylor- Rountree was “in trouble”. Following an exchange between one of the victims and Mr Taylor-Rountree’s partner, Mr Taylor Rountree reacted by punching the first victim in the head, causing him to fall to the ground where his leg lay over the roadside curb. As he was lying in that position, Mr Taylor-Rountree lifted up his leg and stomped hard on the victim’s shin bone causing the bone to break in two places. When the victim tried to stand up the damage was such that the broken bone pierced his skin. Mr Taylor-Rountree then turned to the second victim, hitting him in the head with a closed fist, causing him to spin and fall to the ground. The second victim received a four-centimetre gash on his head and was knocked unconscious for at least 30 seconds. Both victims required hospital treatment.

The sentencing indication

[4] Mr Taylor-Rountree sought a sentencing…

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 Taylor-Rountree v The King

Details

AGLC: Taylor-Rountree v The King [2024] NZHC 2340
Case: [2024] NZHC 2340
Decision Date: 21 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Darcy Taylor-Rountree appeals against his sentence of 26 months' imprisonment imposed for injuring with intent to injure and injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Taylor-Rountree's appeal against the sentence is based on two grounds: insufficient credit was given for his personal mitigating factors and insufficient material explanatory of the offending was put to the Judge. The Court allows the appeal, finding there was a material error in the sentence imposed due to the admission of a psychological report detailing Taylor-Rountree's diagnosed mental disorder that materially contributed to his offending. The Court considers the overall credit for personal mitigating circumstances should be 30 per cent, resulting in an end sentence of one year and 11 months' imprisonment. The principles of rehabilitation and reintegration, and community protection, are best served by a non-custodial sentence in Taylor-Rountree's particular circumstances. Nine months' home detention is the least restrictive sentence appropriate, with special post-detention conditions requiring attendance at counselling.

The court must allow the appeal if it is satisfied that there is an error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed. The appellant must show a material error was made and that a different sentence ought to be imposed. The primary issue on appeal is whether the Judge's credit for personal mitigating circumstances was deficient to the point of material error. The Court finds that there was a material error in the sentence imposed due to the admission of a psychological report detailing Taylor-Rountree's diagnosed mental disorder that materially contributed to his offending. The Court considers the overall credit for personal mitigating circumstances should be 30 per cent, resulting in an end sentence of one year and 11 months' imprisonment. The principles of rehabilitation and reintegration, and community protection, are best served by a non-custodial sentence in Taylor-Rountree's particular circumstances. Nine months' home detention is the least restrictive sentence appropriate, with special post-detention conditions requiring attendance at counselling.

Orders