Legal Research
Cases
Unsworth v The King

Unsworth v The King

Case [2023] NZHC 755 5 April 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2022-419-86

[2023] NZHC 755

IN THE MATTER of an appeal against sentence

BETWEEN

JARRED UNSWORTH

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 30 March 2023

Appearances:

T Sutcliffe for the Appellant P Noorland for the Crown

Judgment:

5 April 2023

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 5 April 2023 at 12:30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Hamilton Legal (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Hamilton Counsel: T Sutcliffe, Barrister, Hamilton

UNSWORTH v R [2023] NZHC 755 [5 April 2023]

Introduction

[1] On 1 November 2022, Jarred Unsworth was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment at the District Court in Hamilton, having pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated burglary, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, injuring with intent to injure and common assault (x 2).1

[2] Mr Unsworth appeals his sentence on the grounds that the discounts applied for the following factors were insufficient:

(a)remorse, engagement in restorative justice and the payment of emotional harm reparation; and

(b)youth

[3]Mr Unsworth does not appeal against the starting point adopted by the Judge.

Background

[4] On 23 July 2021, Mr Unsworth’s girlfriend, Ms A W, had been socialising in town with a girlfriend before meeting up with the complainant, Mr A S, and his friend. Ms A W subsequently made serious allegations against Mr A S’s friend. Mr Unsworth learnt of the allegations and sought to retaliate.

[5] On 26 July 2021, Mr A S arranged to return Ms A W’s phone to her. When Mr A S arrived to return the phone, Mr Unsworth confronted Mr A S and chased him with a tyre iron. Mr Unsworth messaged Mr A S from Ms A W’s phone saying:

I was going to smash your head in on the side of the road just before but I seen your friend drive forward a little to get away. If any of yous had the balls you would of smashed me just before. So keep talking and making me angry. Just means you’ll be spending a long time in hospital.

[6] On 30 July 2021, Mr Unsworth travelled in a motor vehicle to various locations to pick up his co-defendants, Ms A W’s brother and two other men. Together, they drove to the complainant’s address, arriving at about 11:45 pm. Mr Unsworth’s

1 R v Unsworth [2022] NZDC 21440.

associates were armed with homemade weapons including a skill saw blade attached to a wooden handle, a knife attached to a wooden handle that was approximately one metre in length, and an axe.

[7] The four complainants, Mr A S (16), his aunt (28), his grandmother (54) and his grandfather (54) were in bed when they heard loud banging on the front door by Ms A W’s brother who stated it was the Police. Mr A S checked the door. He saw people wearing…

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 Unsworth v The King

Details

AGLC: Unsworth v The King [2023] NZHC 755
Case: [2023] NZHC 755
Decision Date: 5 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jarred Unsworth appeals his sentence for aggravated burglary, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, injuring with intent to injure, and common assault (x 2). Unsworth argues the sentencing discounts applied for remorse, engagement in restorative justice, emotional harm reparation, and youth were insufficient. The High Court of New Zealand considers whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive.

The Court first examines the discount for remorse, noting Unsworth's genuine remorse demonstrated through participation in restorative justice and a $5,000 emotional harm payment. While discounts for remorse can range from 5% to 10%, the Court finds the 10% discount appropriate given the seriousness of the offence involving weapons and significant injuries. The Court then turns to the discount for youth, noting Unsworth was 23 at the time of the offence. While discounts for youth can range from 10% to 30%, the Court finds the 5% discount appropriate given Unsworth's role as the eldest and most experienced offender in a premeditated attack. The Court considers the totality of the sentence, finding the 60% discount appropriate given the gravity of the offence. The Court concludes the sentence of three years and nine months' imprisonment is not manifestly excessive.

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders