Taylor v The Queen - [2004] NZCA 283

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA178/04
THE QUEEN
v
BRIAN PAUL TAYLOR
Hearing:21 October 2004

Court:Glazebrook, Panckhurst, Gendall JJ
Appearances: G J King and C J Milnes for Appellant

B M Stanaway for Crown

Judgment:22 November 2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is allowed to the extent that -
(a)The sentence of two years imprisonment imposed on the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm, the first of the two charges involving firearms in the car following the police chase, imposed cumulatively, is quashed and replaced by a term of two years imprisonment to be served concurrently.
(b)The sentence of six years imprisonment on the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to Mr Tako is quashed and replaced by a sentence of five years imprisonment, to be served cumulatively on the sentences (themselves cumulative) on the earlier driving and wounding charges that were being served at the time of Mr Taylor's sentencing by Wild J.
(c)The sentence of six years imprisonment on the charge of aggravated robbery relating to Mr Edwards, remains cumulative on the five year sentence of imprisonment imposed in relation to the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to Mr Tako.

REASONS
(Given by Glazebrook J)
Introduction
[1]        Mr Taylor pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated robbery, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (x2), participation in an organised criminal group (x2), unlawful possession of a firearm (x3), assault and demanding with menaces. He was sentenced by Wild J in the High Court at Wellington in April this year to an effective period of 14 years imprisonment. He appeals against that sentence.
Background
[2]        Mr Taylor’s convictions relate to incidents that occurred in 2002 and 2003, most involving “warfare” between the Black Power and the Mongrel Mob. At the time of the offending, Mr Taylor was the president of the Mangu Kaha chapter of the Black Power gang.
The first incident
[3]        The first incident, which led to the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, occurred on 3 November 2002. Mr Taylor and other members of Black Power “taxed” a motor vehicle belonging to a member of the Mongrel Mob from an address in Palmerston North. “Taxing” is where property is taken from a person over some perceived debt owed by that person to the gang.
[4]        The victim in this incident, Mr Tako, along with the vehicle owner and approximately six other Mongrel Mob associates, ascertained where the car was being held and at about 8 pm they drove in three vehicles to that address. As Mr Tako walked towards the address, Mr Taylor fired shots at him from an upstairs bedroom with a .22 calibre rifle fitted with a telescopic sight, hitting Mr Tako just below the knee. Mr Taylor fired further shots at Mr Tako as he retreated to his vehicle, with at least one hitting and penetrating the car door as the group attempted to leave…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Taylor v The Queen [2004] NZCA 283
Case: [2004] NZCA 283
Decision Date: 22 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brian Paul Taylor appealed against his sentence imposed by Wild J in the High Court at Wellington. The appellant was found guilty of various charges including aggravated robbery, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, participation in an organised criminal group, unlawful possession of a firearm, assault and demanding with menaces. The appellant was sentenced to an effective period of 14 years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal was required to decide whether the appellant's sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court found that the appellant's sentence was manifestly excessive and was not in accordance with the totality principle. The Court held that the appellant's assistance to the police was a significant mitigating factor which was not adequately taken into account by the sentencing judge. The Court also found that the sentence for the unlawful possession of a firearm should have been concurrent and not cumulative. The sentence of six years imprisonment on the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to Mr Tako was also found to be excessive and was reduced to five years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to the extent that the sentence of two years imprisonment imposed on the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm was quashed and replaced by a term of two years imprisonment to be served concurrently. The sentence of six years imprisonment on the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to Mr Tako was quashed and replaced by a sentence of five years imprisonment, to be served cumulatively on the sentences (themselves cumulative) on the earlier driving and wounding charges that were being served at the time of Mr Taylor's sentencing by Wild J. The sentence of six years imprisonment on the charge of aggravated robbery relating to Mr Edwards remained cumulative on the sentence imposed in relation to the offending in relation to Mr Tako. The effective sentence of 11 years imprisonment was to be served cumulatively upon the sentences (themselves cumulative) on the earlier driving and wounding charges that were being served at the time of Mr Taylor's sentencing by Wild J.

Orders