The King v Cody Allen Young - [2023] NZHC 3563

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANTS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2023-019-001557 CRI-2022-039-000695

[2023] NZHC 3563

THE KING

v

CODY ALLEN YOUNG

Hearing: 7 December 2023

Appearances:

J N Hamilton for the Crown J E Tarrant for Defendant

Sentencing:

7 December 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF VAN BOHEMEN J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton J E Tarrant, Hamilton

R v YOUNG [2023] NZHC 3563 [7 December 2023]

[1]Cody Young, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to:

(a)one charge of kidnapping, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment;1

(b)one charge of attempted kidnapping, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment;2 and

(c)six charges of breaching the Extended Supervision Order (ESO) to which you are subject, each of which carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.3

[2] The sentencing process requires me to consider and assess a lot of information. Because it will take some time, I will now explain to you and others in the Court the process that I will follow:

(a)First, I will outline the facts of your offending for which you have pleaded guilty.

(b)I will then summarise the impacts which your offending has had on your victims.

(c)Next, I will identify the relevant purposes and principles of sentencing in your case and explain the approach to sentencing that I am required to take.

(d)I will then consider the appropriate starting point for the finite term of imprisonment that I will impose if I do not impose a sentence of preventive detention.

(e)After that, I will consider your personal circumstances and consider whether your starting point should be uplifted or decreased. At that

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 209.
2      Sections 209 and 311.
3      Parole Act 2002, s 107T.

point, I will have arrived at the finite term of imprisonment that I will impose, subject to my decision on whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention.

(f)The next step is to consider whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment if I impose a finite sentence.

(g)And, lastly, I will consider whether a sentence of preventive detention should be imposed on you.

[3]That is the process the Sentencing Act requires me to go through.

[4] At that point, I will ask you to stand before I impose the sentence I consider just and appropriate.

Facts of the offending

Kidnapping offending

[5]I start with the kidnapping offending.

[6] The attempted kidnapping took place on 25 February this year, at about 8 pm. The nine-year-old female victim, who I will refer to as A, was travelling home on a scooter. You were driving down the same street and pulled into a driveway.

[7] After opening your rear passenger door, A approached the vehicle. You asked her if she would like $20. She said no. You then asked her…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The King v Cody Allen Young and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] NZHC 3563
Decision Date: 7 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cody Allen Young appeared before the High Court of New Zealand in Hamilton for sentencing on charges of kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, and multiple breaches of an Extended Supervision Order (ESO). The court heard victim impact statements from the victims' families, highlighting the profound emotional and psychological effects of the crimes. The court identified the purposes of sentencing as holding Young accountable, protecting the community, and promoting rehabilitation. The starting point for sentencing was determined based on the seriousness of the offenses, considering factors such as premeditation, vulnerability of the victims, and the impact on the victims. Young's extensive criminal history, including previous sexual offenses against minors, was considered an aggravating factor, warranting an uplift in the sentence. Mitigating factors included Young's difficult upbringing, exposure to sexual abuse, and limited success in rehabilitation efforts due to a lack of motivation and incomplete treatment programs. The court imposed a sentence of four years and six months' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of three years, and a concurrent one-year sentence for the ESO breaches. The court declined to impose a sentence of preventive detention, reasoning that a determinate sentence would provide adequate protection for society and allow Young the opportunity for rehabilitation through prison-based programs. Additionally, a firearms prohibition order was imposed under the Arms Act 1983.

Orders