The Queen v Christie - [2008] NZCA 211

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA219/08
[2008] NZCA 211
THE QUEEN
v
ROBERT JAMES CHRISTIE
Hearing:26 June 2008

Court:Baragwanath, Rodney Hansen and Harrison JJ
Counsel:L B Cordwell for Appellant

N P Chisnall for Crown

Judgment:8 July 2008 at 11 am

Reissued:        9 July 2008: See Minute of 9 July 2008
Effective date of Judgment:    8 July 2008

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        An extension of time for appealing is granted.
B        The appeal is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Baragwanath J)
[1]       This appeal is against a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of six years imposed by Judge Phillips for the appellant’s offending against his former partner on two days, a month apart. The Crown does not oppose leave for the appeal which is out of time but contends that the appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed on that basis.
The counts and the pleas
[2]       The appellant was charged with committing offences on 27 February 2007 of:
·     Assaulting a female;
·     Wounding her with reckless disregard; and
·     Threatening to cause her grievous bodily harm.

[3]       On 25 May 2007 he was further charged that while on bail he committed further offences:
·     Unlawful detention of the victim;
·     Assaulting her; and
·     Two counts of rape.

[4]       There was a further charge of escaping from lawful custody on 30 March 2007.
[5]       The appellant pleaded guilty to all charges.
The appellant’s contention
[6]       The appellant does not challenge the starting point of 11 and a half years’ imprisonment adopted by the sentencing Judge but contends that the end sentence is manifestly excessive because of inadequate discount for his guilty pleas and failure to acknowledge an expression of remorse recorded in the pre-sentence report.
The facts
[7]       The appellant is 26 years of age. His list of previous convictions includes cultivation of cannabis as well as burglary, and possession of an offensive weapon.
[8]       The first offending, on 27 February 2007, occurred when the appellant arrived unannounced at the victim’s home. The victim was his former partner and they had a 15 month old son. For a time the appellant played with the child, then while he was holding still the child, he punched the victim in the back of the head with a closed fist and cut her with a knife. He told her that he felt like setting her on fire and demanded her cigarette lighter. He tried to remove the lid of a plastic petrol can but was unsuccessful. He then handed the child back to the victim and apologised for his behaviour. She asked him to leave but he refused to do so until the police arrived.
[9]       The second offending must be recounted at length. On 24 March 2007 the victim brought their child to the appellant’s home and left him there. She went to her new partner’s address and spent the night with him. The following morning she saw a…

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 The Queen v Christie

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Christie [2008] NZCA 211
Case: [2008] NZCA 211
Decision Date: 8 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Robert James Christie was heard and decided on 8 July 2008. The appellant, Robert James Christie, was appealing against a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of six years. The sentence was imposed for serious offences committed against his former partner on two separate occasions, a month apart. The Crown did not oppose the granting of leave for the appeal but contended that the appeal lacked merit and should be dismissed. The appellant had pleaded guilty to charges including assault, unlawful detention, and rape.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive due to inadequate discount for the appellant’s guilty pleas and failure to acknowledge his expression of remorse as recorded in the pre-sentence report. The appellant did not challenge the starting point of 11 and a half years’ imprisonment but argued that the end sentence was excessively harsh.

The court considered the gravity of the offending, which involved serious and continuing violence and threats of violence motivated by a desire to dehumanise and degrade the victim. The presence of the parties’ 15-month-old child during the offending added a distinctive and perverse character to the crimes. The court acknowledged that the appellant had expressed remorse but found that this needed to be viewed within the wider context of the offending. The court also concluded that the discount for the appellant’s guilty pleas was conservative and that the starting point could have been set higher. However, the court found the 10-year term justifiable after considering the totality of the offending and the need for deterrence and community protection given the appellant’s high risk of reoffending.

The Court of Appeal granted an extension of time for appealing but dismissed the appeal on the basis that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The final orders of the court were that an extension of time for appealing is granted, but the appeal is dismissed.

Orders