The King v Lyndon Paul Sheed - [2022] NZHC 3304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-009-13

[2022] NZHC 3304

THE KING

v

LYNDON PAUL SHEED

Hearing: 8 December 2022

Appearances:

M N Zarifeh and J E Lancaster for Crown E Huda for Defendant

Judgment:

8 December 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MANDER J

[1] Lyndon Sheed, you are for sentence this morning for the manslaughter of Kane Wayman following your conviction by a jury on that charge. Manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It is necessary that I set out the factual basis upon which I proceed to impose sentence.

Facts

[2] Mr Wayman died on the morning of New Year’s Day 2021 after attending New Year’s Eve celebrations at the premises of the Mongols gang at Burnham. He had travelled there the previous evening in the company of [A], and your daughter. Nothing particularly out of the ordinary or untoward occurred during the night. While

R v SHEED [2022] NZHC 3304 [8 December 2022]

there was some evidence that Mr Wayman may have at times made a nuisance of himself or engaged in annoying behaviour, it is not apparent there was any violence.

[3] You spent much of the night with [A]. At around 7.30 am on the morning of 1 January 2021 you and [A] were woken by a commotion outside. Mr Wayman could be seen retreating from a man who was aggressively pursuing him around a vehicle in the yard. Mr Wayman had a bleeding nose and the male following Mr Wayman was seen to punch him.

[4] You followed [A] outside. However, you did not try to stop what was going on or break the fight up. To the contrary, you approached Mr Wayman and proceeded to deliver what is described as a “king hit” to Mr Wayman which immediately caused him to fall to the ground. You, together with the original protagonist, and another man then proceeded to kick and punch Mr Wayman, who was lying prone on the ground after being knocked unconscious as a result of your initial blow.

[5] I sentence you today on the basis the jury concluded the “king hit” you administered to Mr Wayman was a substantive and operative cause of his death. This forceful blow knocked Mr Wayman out. It rendered him defenceless during the group assault that subsequently took place while Mr Wayman was on the ground.

[6] Your co-defendant at the trial, Mr Carston, who the Crown alleged joined in the assault after you struck Mr Wayman, was acquitted. Leaving aside issues relating to the timing of his involvement, which may have had some bearing on the jury’s assessment of the causative effect of the subsequent group assault compared to your direct punch to the head that rendered Mr Wayman unconscious, there were issues relating to the accuracy of [A]’s identification of him. Similarly, your daughter was acquitted of inciting Mr Wayman’s death, likely because the jury were not satisfied as to the…

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 Lyndon Paul Sheed 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: [2022] NZHC 3304
Decision Date: 8 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Lyndon Paul Sheed was convicted of manslaughter following the death of Kane Wayman. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Sheed, considering the circumstances of the assault and the aggravating and mitigating factors. The key legal issue was the appropriate starting point for the sentence, given the specific nature of the assault and its consequences. The court considered several aggravating factors, including the attack on Wayman's head, his vulnerability while unconscious, and the ongoing nature of the assault. Mitigating factors such as Sheed's personal background and lack of expressed remorse were also evaluated. After weighing these factors, the court determined a starting point of five years and eight months' imprisonment, adjusted for the time Sheed had already spent on electronically monitored bail, resulting in a final sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment.

Orders