Winter v The Queen

Jesse-James Winter and Nicholas Andrew Hanson appeal against their convictions and sentences in the Christchurch District Court. The appeals were heard together. Mr Winter appeals against his conviction on two grounds. First, the trial Judge wrongly admitted a prejudicial text message sent by Mr Hanson. Secondly, the trial Judge erred in failing to provide the jury with an included lesser offence for their consideration. He also appeals against his sentence of eight years’ imprisonment. Mr Hanson appeals against his sentence of 10 years and nine months’ imprisonment. This included a cumulative sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment for firearms and other charges which arose when he was apprehended on the group offending. He also appeals the 60 per cent minimum period of imprisonment imposed on his sentence of eight and a half years’ imprisonment for the group assaults. Mr Winter’s appeal against conviction was dismissed on both grounds. The Court found the trial Judge appropriately dealt with any unfair prejudice arising from the text through the direction he gave. It was open to the trial Judge to take the view he did. The Court also found the trial Judge was not required to put an alternative lesser charge to the jury. The interests of justice did not require that it be put to the jury. The Court found that it was not required to be put to the jury in the interests of justice. The United Kingdom approach requires putting obvious alternatives to the jury, not any alternative at all. Mr Winter’s sentence appeal was dismissed. The Court found there was no undue delay. Some of the delays were for Mr Winter’s benefit or in his interest. The Court found Mr Winter has not shown that his right to a trial without undue delay was breached. Mr Hanson’s sentence appeal was dismissed. The Court found the cumulative sentence imposed was at the stern end of the available range, as was the sentence for the group violence. It was appropriate to assess a sentence for the firearms charges on a totality basis, to impose that sentence cumulatively on the sentence for the group violence and to check that this did not offend the totality principle. The Court also found the trial Judge was not required to reduce the minimum period of imprisonment imposed on Mr Hanson’s sentence for the group violence. Having regard to the need to protect the community, a minimum period of imprisonment of 60 per cent was open to the Judge.