Webb v R

Case [2022] NZCA 137 21 April 2022

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA37/2022
[2022] NZCA 137

BETWEEN	NATHAN LAWRENCE WEBB Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	28 March 2022
Court:	Gilbert, Woolford and Dunningham JJ
Counsel:	J C Hannam for Appellant J M Marinovich for Respondent
Judgment:	21 April 2022 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against sentence is allowed.
BThe sentence of nine years and six months’ imprisonment on the charge of rape is set aside and a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Woolford J)

On 19 November 2021, Nathan Lawrence Webb was sentenced to nine years and six months’ imprisonment on charges of injuring with intent to injure, wounding with intent to injure and sexual violation by rape.[1] He now appeals against sentence on the ground that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

Factual background

[1]R v Webb [2021] NZDC 22834 [District Court judgment].

The complainant in each case was Mr Webb’s partner. As to the first charge, at around 8.30 am on 11 January 2020, the complainant was asleep in her bed as Mr Webb stood over her. Mr Webb lashed out and struck the complainant once in the mouth with a closed fist, causing her top lip to split open. Mr Webb packed a bag and told the complainant he was setting her free as he left the room. The complainant had approximately five stitches to repair the injury to her upper lip. Mr Webb told police it was only a little jab and it was self-defence.
As to the second and third charges, the complainant was residing in temporary accommodation at a motel. Sometime between 20 May and 3 June 2020, Mr Webb was present at the complainant’s motel unit. The complainant was lying on her bed talking with her children on Facebook. Mr Webb thought she was chatting up men. He called the complainant a slut and said, “I’ll eat you alive bitch”, at which time he reached over and bit the complainant on her right breast. The complainant suffered a wound caused by Mr Webb’s teeth and significant bruising around the wound.
At around 5.00 am on 3 June 2020, Mr Webb went around uninvited to the motel unit where the complainant was asleep in her bed. Mr Webb opened the window beside the front door, reached through and unlocked the door. Once inside, he got on top of the complainant, pinning her to the bed and calling her a cheating slut. Mr Webb struck the complainant at least twice in the face as she attempted to fight back while struggling on the bed.
Mr Webb then removed his clothing and got back on top of the complainant. He put his penis into the complainant’s vagina without her consent and raped her on the bed. When the complainant told Mr Webb that she was going to call police, he grabbed a knife and told the complainant he would cut…

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 Webb v R

Details

AGLC: Webb v R [2022] NZCA 137
Case: [2022] NZCA 137
Decision Date: 21 April 2022 at 9.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nathan Lawrence Webb appeals against his sentence of nine years and six months’ imprisonment on charges of injuring with intent to injure, wounding with intent to injure and sexual violation by rape. The appeal is against the sentence imposed by the District Court. Webb submits that the sentence is manifestly excessive, primarily on the basis that the District Court did not sufficiently account for his cultural background and alcohol addiction in determining the discount to apply. The Crown submits that the District Court was correct to discount the sentence by 10 per cent for the cultural factors identified and that the uplifts applied were appropriate.

The Court of Appeal allows the appeal against sentence. While the Court agrees that a discount is warranted on account of Webb's traumatic upbringing and culturally deprived background, prospects of rehabilitation are problematic. The cultural report queries whether Webb has an adequate understanding yet of the impact he had on the complainant. The Court cannot say that a 10 per cent discount is inadequate to take account of the cultural factors which have driven Webb's offending. However, the Court considers the uplift of nine months to take into account Webb's criminal history and the fact that he was subject to a sentence of intensive supervision or on bail at the time of the offending is clearly disproportionate. The starting point adopted by the District Court was towards the top end of the available range, and an uplift of two years’ imprisonment was ample to reflect the totality of Webb's offending. The Court considers a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment is sufficient to meet the purposes and principles of sentencing in this case.

Orders