Worthington v The Queen - [2020] NZHC 377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-004-3151

[2020] NZHC 377

BETWEEN
JAMIEE LEIGH WORTHINGTON

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 3 March 2020

Appearances:

G Burns for Appellant

F Sulikosky for Respondent

Judgment:

4 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 March 2020 at 12 midday Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

WORTHINGTON v R [2020] NZHC 377 [4 March 2020]

[1] Jaimee Worthington was sentenced in the Waitakere District Court on 13 December 2019 for shoplifting1 and assault with intent to injure.2 She appeals the Court’s decision to decline an application for discharge without conviction pursuant to s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The offending

[2]The offending relates to two events in late 2018.

[3] First, on 12 September 2018, she shoplifted $259.97 worth of clothing from Rebel Sport in Westgate mall. This is the less significant of the two events.

[4] The main incident occurred on 22 September 2018, when Ms Worthington assaulted her partner. They were in a relationship and have one child together. While her partner was out, Ms Worthington logged into his Tinder account to discover he had been messaging someone. This angered Ms Worthington. She was concerned about her partner’s faithfulness in the relationship, and potentially his sexuality. The victim took Ms Worthington’s mobile phone and went to his vehicle. Ms Worthington then lent through an open window, placed her face close to the victim’s, and struck him several times to the face. A neighbour came and interrupted them. The victim then went back into the house to gather his clothing. When he stepped out of the bedroom, Ms Worthington grabbed him by the head and hit him on the nose, above the eye, and forehead, and bit the victim on his right shoulder. As he tried to leave, the defendant struck him in the head with her cell phone approximately three times.

[5] The victim went to the neighbour’s house and reported the incident to the police.

[6] As a result of the offending, the victim received scratches over his face, had bruising on his left cheek bone and forehead, and had a bite mark on his right shoulder.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d).
2 Section 193.

Approach on Appeal

[7] An appeal against a refusal to grant a discharge is an appeal against conviction and sentence.3 The appeal proceeds on ordinary appellate principles.

[8] The legal principles relevant to an application for a discharge without conviction are well settled. The Court must consider whether the threshold under s 107 of the Sentencing Act has been met. That requires the Court to undertake a three-step analysis, assessing:

(a)the gravity of the offence, taking into account all aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending and offender;

(b)the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction (there must be a “real and appreciable” risk that any given consequence will happen);4…

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 Worthington v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Worthington v The Queen [2020] NZHC 377
Case: [2020] NZHC 377
Decision Date: 4 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jaimee Worthington appeals against the Waitakere District Court's decision to decline an application for discharge without conviction following her sentencing for shoplifting and assault with intent to injure. The High Court's task was to determine whether the District Court's decision was correct, specifically considering the gravity of the offending, the consequences of conviction, and whether those consequences were out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. The Court examined the District Court's assessment of the offending's gravity, personal mitigating factors, and the consequences of a conviction for Ms Worthington, particularly in light of her aspirations to work in early childhood education. The High Court found that the District Court did not sufficiently weigh personal mitigating factors and erred in assessing the consequences of a conviction. It concluded that the long-term consequences of a conviction for both theft and assault with intent to injure would be out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. The appeal was successful, and the Court ordered Ms Worthington to be discharged without conviction.

Orders