Woods v Police - [2019] NZHC 335

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2018-409-000128

[2019] NZHC 335

BETWEEN
QUENTIN DYLAN WOODS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 28 February 2019

Appearances:

N R Wham for Appellant

K A Courteney for Respondent

Judgment:

4 March 2019

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Quentin Woods, pleaded guilty to two groups of charges. The first related to offending on 9 July 2018 consisting of threatening to kill, Summary Offences assault, behaving threateningly, and two charges of common assault. The second related to events that occurred on 23 September 2018 and involved charges of threatening to kill, breaching release conditions and two charges of common assault. Mr Woods was sentenced by Judge Saunders on 28 November 2018 to a term of 12 months’ imprisonment. Release conditions were imposed for a period to run of 12 months. He appeals that sentence on the basis that first, it was manifestly excessive and secondly, the Court did not have jurisdiction to impose the release conditions it did.

[2] It should be noted that the Department of Corrections has received correspondence from the appellant indicating the appellant would now like to be

WOODS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 335 [4 March 2019]

referred to as “Amy Woods”, and for the pronouns “she” and “her” to be used. For consistency with the decision appealed against, however, the reports and the submissions filed, this judgment will use “he”, “him” and “his”. No disrespect is intended by this.

Facts

[3] At the time of the incident on 9 July 2018, the appellant was at his home address in Templeton, where he was subject to GPS monitoring and 24/7 supervision. The three victims in this set of offending were all Christchurch residential care supervisors.

[4] At about 2.45 pm the appellant used a razor blade to cut his right arm. He then, while standing approximately three metres away from Matthew Smith, a residential care supervisor, held the razor blade in the direction of Mr Smith’s face and said: “Can I cut your face?” The appellant then wrapped his arm around Mr Smith’s neck and squeezed tightly for approximately two seconds. The duress alarm was activated and this, it seems, caused the appellant to let go of the victim’s neck.

[5] At about 7.00 pm that day, the appellant was transported to Christchurch Hospital due to the cuts to his arm. At the hospital he stated to Leonard Welsh that he was going to kill him. When the appellant and Mr Welsh went outside for a cigarette, the appellant turned suddenly towards the victim and shoulder barged him twice, causing Mr Walsh to lose his balance and stumble off the footpath. The appellant picked up a road cone and lifted it above his head. Gary Lee-Taylor who was present then grabbed the road cone off the appellant. The appellant wrapped his arm around Mr Lee-Taylor’s neck in an attempt to place him in a headlock.…

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 Woods v Police

Details

AGLC: Woods v Police [2019] NZHC 335
Case: [2019] NZHC 335
Decision Date: 4 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quentin Woods appeals the sentence imposed on him by Judge Saunders for multiple charges including threatening to kill, assault, and breaching release conditions. The appellant contends that the sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive and that the Court did not have jurisdiction to impose the release conditions it did. The court considered the appellant's early guilty pleas, personal circumstances, and history, as well as the totality principle. The Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the release conditions imposed were lawful and necessary to meet the purpose of special conditions under s 93(3) of the Sentencing Act. The appeal was dismissed. The court found no appealable error in Judge Saunders’ decision.

Orders