The Queen v Turner

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA22/2008
[2008] NZCA 217
THE QUEEN
v
LEON DELSHANNON TURNER
Hearing:30 June 2008

Court:Ellen France, Gendall and Venning JJ
Counsel:D N Bunce for Appellant

D R La Hood for Crown

Judgment:9 July 2008 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

An extension of time for the filing of the notice of appeal is granted but the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Venning J)
[1]       The appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of perverting the course of justice. Judge Crosbie sentenced him to imprisonment for three and a half years: DC CHCH CRI-2006-009-011012 12 December 2007. Judge Holderness had earlier sentenced a co-offender to 14 months’ imprisonment with leave to apply for home detention: R v Whangapirita DC CHCH CRI-2006-009-011012 28 September 2007. The appellant appeals against his sentence on the ground of disparity.
Background
[2]       In March 2006 there were tensions between rival chapters of the Mongrel Mob in Christchurch. On 26 March 2006 an aggravated burglary took place at an address where members of the Notorious chapter lived. The co-offender was present at the time. She made a statement to the police in which she identified the appellant as one of the offenders. As a result the appellant and an associate were arrested and charged with aggravated burglary.
[3]       While the appellant was on remand he sent text messages to the co-offender and spoke to her by telephone to organise what evidence she should give at depositions so that he would not be identified and the charges against him would be dismissed. The co-offender was a willing participant in that scheme.
[4]       The depositions hearing was held on 29 June 2006. The co-offender did not identify the appellant when giving her evidence. As a result the aggravated burglary charges against him were dismissed.
[5]       The co-offender was later spoken to by the police about her role in having the charges dismissed. She admitted speaking to the appellant by phone and text message in order to come up with a story so that the charges against the appellant would be dismissed and he would be released. The appellant was also spoken to about it but he denied that it had happened and declined to speak further about it.
[6]       At the time of the offending the co-offender was a 19 year old, unemployed female associated with one chapter of the Mongrel Mob. The appellant was a 31 year old patched member of another chapter of the same gang. The co-offender pleaded guilty following her committal for trial. In sentencing her Judge Holderness noted that a start point of somewhere between two and two and a half years’ imprisonment was appropriate. He settled on two years and then, taking account of the co-offender’s personal circumstances, namely her relatively early guilty plea, age and the fact she was a first offender, the Judge determined the appropriate sentence for her was 14 months.
The sentence of the appellant

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in The Queen v Turner was brought before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant, Leon DelShannon Turner, had pleaded guilty to one charge of perverting the course of justice and was sentenced to imprisonment for three and a half years. Turner appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was excessive in comparison to the sentence of his co-offender, who was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment. The legal issues before the court involved the disparity between the sentences and whether the appellant's sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the principles of sentencing disparity, noting that sentencing is not an exact science and that the circumstances of one offender can rarely be closely compared with those of another. However, a marked difference in the sentences imposed on co-offenders, for which no justification can be shown, may be of importance to the administration of justice. The court found that there were differences between the culpability and position of the appellant and the co-offender in relation to the offence that supported an increased starting point for the appellant before taking account of personal aggravating and mitigating factors. The appellant's role in the offending was more influential than the co-offender's, and his culpability was considerably higher. The court also noted that the appellant's lengthy list of previous convictions and the fact that the offending was committed while he was on remand were significant aggravating factors.

The court found that the appellant's sentence of three years six months was within range and could not be said to be manifestly excessive. The court granted an extension of time for the filing of the appeal but dismissed the appeal against sentence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established