Taylor v R - [2017] NZCA 53

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA420/2016
[2017] NZCA 53

BETWEEN	AHU STANLEY TAYLOR Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	21 February 2017
Court:	French, Mallon and Duffy JJ
Counsel:	M J Taylor-Cyphers for Appellant M J Lillico for Respondent
Judgment:	9 March 2017 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.

B The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

C The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Mr Taylor was convicted at trial in the High Court of attempted murder. The trial judge Davidson J sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 10 years and eight months with a minimum non-parole period of five years’ imprisonment. Mr Taylor was also ordered to pay reparation of $3,000.[1]
[1]R v Taylor [2016] NZHC 1620.
Mr Taylor now appeals against his sentence and conviction. The appeal was filed out of time, but the delay was not substantial and the Crown does not oppose an extension of time being granted. It is granted accordingly.

The evidence

The charge arose out of an unprovoked attack at a convenience store in Wanaka in the early hours of the morning. Mr Taylor was at the store with an associate Mr Rowles. For reasons that are not entirely clear, the two men approached another customer Mr Vincent who was unknown to them. Each of them punched Mr Vincent in the face.
Then ensued a prolonged and vicious beating which was captured on CCTV footage. Both men punched, kneed and kicked Mr Vincent. At one point, Mr Taylor held Mr Vincent in a headlock and punched him. While Mr Taylor maintained the headlock, Mr Rowles delivered a series of kicks and punches. As the attack continued, Mr Vincent was pulled or fell to the ground three times. On the third time, he did not recover and remained lying on the floor not moving.
For the next one minute and 39 seconds both Mr Taylor and Mr Rowles attacked Mr Vincent as he lay motionless on the floor. This included repetitive stomps on his face and head. Mr Taylor delivered 23 single-foot stomps to Mr Vincent’s head. On an additional three occasions, Mr Taylor placed his hands on a shop bench either side of him and lifted himself up so as to be able to stomp with both feet at the same time on Mr Vincent’s head.
In total, approximately 81 deliberate blows were made to Mr Vincent’s head or body.
As Mr Taylor left the scene, he threatened to put a bullet in the head of the shop assistant if the latter told the police anything. En route to his house, Mr Taylor discarded some of his personal items and then once home put his clothes and shoes in the washing machine and had a shower. When later arrested, Mr Taylor said “well he was a bit of a tough guy, I think we’ll…

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 v R

Details

AGLC: Taylor v R [2017] NZCA 53
Case: [2017] NZCA 53
Decision Date: 9 March 2017 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ahu Stanley Taylor appeals against his conviction and sentence in the High Court of New Zealand. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand by French, Mallon, and Duffy JJ. Taylor was convicted of attempted murder following an unprovoked attack on another customer at a convenience store in Wanaka. The Court was required to determine whether Taylor’s conviction and sentence were lawful and appropriate. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge correctly directed the jury on intent and that the jury’s verdict was reasonably open to them. The Court also found that the sentence imposed was appropriate given Taylor’s culpability and the severity of the crime. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed, and the application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.

Orders