The Queen v Parker - [2009] NZCA 337

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA265/2009
[2009] NZCA 337
THE QUEEN
v
WILLIAM MORRISON PARKER
Hearing:27 July 2009

Court:Baragwanath, Venning and Winkelmann JJ
Counsel:B S Cooper and R H Anderson for Appellant

A M Powell for Crown

Judgment:3 August 2009 at 2.30pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Winkelmann J)
[1]       Mr William Parker was convicted following trial of injuring with intent to injure. On 23 April 2009 Judge Weir sentenced him to two years imprisonment with special conditions to run for six months after release.
[2]       Mr Parker appeals against his sentence on the ground that it was disproportionate to the sentences imposed on his co-offenders. He argues that the Judge over-estimated the seriousness of his role in the offending, giving insufficient weight to the limited role that he played compared to his co-offenders.
Factual background
[3]       In the early hours of 22 July 2007 Mr Parker and his two co-offenders, Mr Mear and Mr Cresswell, were at a party at Mr Parker’s house. Two victims, Mr Kevin Hodge (aged 52) and his son Mr Jordan Hodge (aged 19) were walking home from town, on a route that took them past Mr Parker’s house. An exchange of words occurred. Mr Mear approached the two men, and a further verbal exchange took place. Mr Mear then proceeded to kick and punch Mr Jordan Hodge. Mr Cresswell joined the attack and helped to punch and kick Mr Jordan Hodge to the ground. Mr Kevin Hodge went to his son’s aid, lying over him on the ground to protect him from the attack. It was at this point that Mr Parker approached the group, kicking Mr Kevin Hodge once in the head. Mr Kevin Hodge’s eye was left swollen to the extent that it was effectively closed as a result of that kick. Although that was the full extent of Mr Parker’s involvement in the incident he caused the most significant injury suffered by either of the two victims.
[4]       Mr Mear and Mr Cresswell continued their attack on the two victims after Mr Parker kicked Mr Hodge. In addition to the injury inflicted by Mr Parker, Mr Kevin Hodge suffered a laceration to the bridge of his nose, a cut to his temple and grazes to his hands, elbows and legs. His son received a cut to his head, a blood nose, sore ribs and back and a chipped tooth.
[5]       Mr Parker, Mr Mear and Mr Cresswell were all convicted by a jury of injuring with intent to injure. Mr Parker was convicted on one count in respect of Mr Kevin Hodge, Mr Mear on one count in respect of Mr Jordan Hodge, and Mr Cresswell on one count in respect of Mr Kevin Hodge and one count in respect of Mr Jordan Hodge.
Sentencing decision
[6]       Judge Weir had victim impact statements from the two victims and pre-sentence reports for each offender. The latter disclosed that Mr…

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 Parker

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Parker [2009] NZCA 337
Case: [2009] NZCA 337
Decision Date: 3 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appeal of William Morrison Parker was heard on 27 July 2009, with judgment given on 3 August 2009. The case, CA265/2009 [2009] NZCA 337, concerns an appeal by Parker against his sentence for injuring with intent to injure. The appeal hinged on the argument that the sentence was disproportionate when compared to those imposed on his co-offenders, Mear and Cresswell. Parker contended that the Judge had overestimated the seriousness of his role in the offence, insufficiently acknowledging his limited involvement relative to his co-offenders.

The legal issues before the Court involved determining whether the disparity in sentencing between Parker and his co-offenders was justifiable under the circumstances of the case. The Court had to assess the extent to which Parker's role in the offence warranted a harsher sentence and whether the Judge's reasoning for the disparity was sound. The Court referenced precedents such as R v Rameka and R v Lawson to evaluate whether the disparity was gross enough to warrant intervention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Parker's appeal, finding that the Judge's assessment of the seriousness of Parker's role in the offence was correct. The Court noted that Parker's kicking of the victim in the head, which resulted in significant injury, was a critical factor that justified a harsher sentence. Additionally, Parker's age and criminal history were considered, both of which distinguished him from his co-offenders. The Court concluded that the disparity in sentencing was well-justified and consonant with the principles of justice. The Court also remarked on Parker's demonstrated remorse and potential for reform.

Orders