Thompson v The King - [2023] NZHC 718

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2022-463-119

[2023] NZHC 718

BETWEEN
NATHAN IAN THOMPSON

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 3 April 2023

Counsel:

T D Clee for Appellant C Lee for Respondent

Judgment:

4 April 2023

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 April 2023 at 9 am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Koo Telle (Auckland) for Appellant
Pollett Legal Ltd (Tauranga) for Respondent

THOMPSON v R [2023] NZHC 718 [4 April 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mr Thompson appeals the sentence of two years and 11 months’ imprisonment imposed on him by Judge Mabey KC on 15 August 2022.1 He contends the sentence is manifestly excessive.

[2] Judge Mabey had to sentence Mr Thompson on admitted charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm,2 impeding breathing3 and common assault.4

Background

[3] The summary of facts sets out a series of events which occurred at a family gathering on 2 October 2021.

[4] Mr Thompson had been drinking and he began to act aggressively towards his father-in-law. Mr Thompson took off his shirt and challenged his father-in-law to fight. A person at the gathering stood between the two men and nothing happened immediately. However, Mr Thompson then threw a garden pot at his father-in-law, and missed him.

[5] Mr Thompson then dismantled a metal basketball hoop and used half of it as a weapon. He approached his father-in-law, swinging the half of the basketball hoop and struck his father-in-law on the head with it. His father-in-law fell unconscious to the ground and Mr Thompson used the half of the basketball hoop to hit his upper body two or three times as he lay on the ground. Others at the gathering then took the half of the basketball hoop from him.

[6] A second victim then came to help the father-in-law. In the course of this the victim tried to stop Mr Thompson from taking the half of the basketball hoop. The two wrestled and Mr Thompson put the victim in a headlock. He then constricted the victim’s neck until the victim nearly lost consciousness. Others intervened and the violence stopped.

1      R v Thompson [2022] NZDC 15542.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 189A(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 196; maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment.

[7] The father-in-law had head injuries which required stitching. He had a subdural haematoma and an arachnoid haematoma and was kept in hospital for treatment and observation. The effect of the violence on the father-in-law was long lasting. He was an assistant dairy farm manager and he had to be off work for some time. At the date of sentencing it was reported that the father-in-law could not be standing for the hours needed for him to work in the dairy shed. He was suffering from dizziness and lack of concentration but was making…

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 Thompson v The King

Details

AGLC: Thompson v The King [2023] NZHC 718
Case: [2023] NZHC 718
Decision Date: 4 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nathan Ian Thompson appeals against the sentence of two years and 11 months' imprisonment imposed by Judge Mabey KC, arguing that it is manifestly excessive. The sentence was imposed following Thompson's admissions to charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, impeding breathing, and common assault. The events leading to the charges occurred at a family gathering where Thompson, after consuming alcohol, assaulted his father-in-law and another individual using a metal basketball hoop and by constricting the neck of the second victim.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. This involved considering the severity of the offences, Thompson's background, and the mitigating factors presented. The court noted Thompson's deprived childhood, his subsequent rehabilitation, and his remorse. Despite these factors, the court also considered the severity of the assaults, particularly the grievous bodily harm inflicted on the father-in-law. The court found that while the sentence was within the appropriate range, it could be reduced based on additional mitigating factors not fully considered by the District Court.

In reaching its decision, the court took into account a new s 27 cultural report which provided further insight into the impact of Thompson's childhood on his adult life. The court agreed that the new report justified a higher discount for Thompson's character and life history, leading to a reduction in the sentence by six months. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was quashed, with a new sentence of two years and five months' imprisonment on the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm being substituted. The sentences on the other charges remained unchanged.

Orders