THE QUEEN TOKO MARCUS PEARSON. Guilty SENTENCE OF MACKENZIE J
|
|
- Philomena Patrick
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI THE QUEEN 0 V TOKO MARCUS PEARSON Charges: Pleas: Counsel: Sentence: I. Burglary 2. Injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm Guilty C Horsley for the prisoner R G Ronayne with H Wrigley for the Crown 19 November 2004 Imprisonment: I. 21/2 years 2. 4Y2 years (Cumulative) Minimum non-parole period 4 years 8 months SENTENCE OF MACKENZIE J 'Yoko Marcus Pearson, [1] You appear for sentence on one charge of burglary and one charge of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. You pleaded guilty to these offences in the District Court and jurisdiction was declined and you were referred to this Court for sentence
2 [2] The facts are that on the night of 16 July 2004 you had been drinking at various bars in Tauranga. You had fried to talk to the victim of the offence of injuring with intent on two occasions during the night but she bad ignored your advances. Later, and early in the morning of 17 July, she and her friend were sleeping in their car when she woke and went to use the public toilets. You saw her entering the toilets and followed her. When she unlocked the cubicle she had been using, you pushed her back into it and held her against the wall. She struggled. During the struggle, you held her from behind and covered her mouth with your hand. She broke free and attempted to escape, but you grabbed her again, causing both of you to fall to the floor. Again you held her down. She escaped once more and ran outside, but you caught her. You proceeded to punch her about the face with closed fists at least five or six times. Finally she got away and ran to a nearby building, where she called police. She was taken to hospital. She had severe bruising to her face and head and bruising to both shoulders and upper back. [3] Meanwhile you had moved on to a residential area where you entered a dwelling-house through an unlocked garage door. Two women were asleep in this house. You removed your outer clothing and left that on the garage floor. You went to the kitchen. You then entered an unoccupied bedroom. One of the women, who was unaware of your presence, got up to have a shower. You went into the other woman's bedroom. She was woken by the sound of the door opening. She turned on the light, saw you and began yelling at you. You ran out of the bedroom and away from the property, picking up your clothes as you went. That incident forms the basis for the burglary charge. [4] When you were spoken to by the police, you admitted to the assault in the toilets. In explanation, you said that you had seen the victim earlier in the night and had got angry when she ignored you. You admitted punching her five times in the head. You also admitted entering the dwelling-house. You said that you wanted to touch a female occupant and masturbate. You also admitted that you intended to steal any worthwhile property in the house, although no property was taken. You showed some remorse and you ask that your regret be conveyed to your victims, though you recognise this would be of little consolation to them. 2
3 [5] On those facts the Crown submits that a sentence of preventive detention is appropriate. You are over 18 years of age and the offence of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm is a qualifying offence for such a sentence. So you are eligible for that sentence to be imposed. You have been advised of the fact that that sentence is to be sought. Reports have been obtained from two professional assessors as required. So I must consider whether that sentence should be imposed on you. To impose it, I must be satisfied that you are likely to commit another serious sexual or violent offence if you are released at the expiry of any finite sentence that might be imposed. In considering that, I must take into account a number of matters. [6] The first is any pattern of serious offending disclosed by your history. As to that, in your 20 years, a good part of which has now been served in prison, you have logged up some 33 convictions. Those include some burglary and property offences in In 2000 you committed an aggravated assault and further dishonesty offences. In 2001 you were convicted on 11 charges involving burglary, attempted burglary, theft and an indecent assault upon a girl under the age of 12 years. That assault was a serious one, as can be seen from the remarks of the sentencing Judge on that occasion. He said: All of this offending of course is serious. It involves breaking of occupied properties at night; there are sexual overtones; the prowling situation; and the most serious matter on 19 May of this indecent assault on this seven year old girl when you touched her, you masturbated against her leg, and you simulated sexual intercourse. That offending occurred on bail. Effectively, as I have said, these were prowling-type offences: you were entering homes by stealth and you were either acting dishonestly or indecently. [7] From that there emerges a pattern of initially relatively minor offending, steadily escalating in seriousness and changing in nature to include the sexual element which has been apparent both in your conviction in 2001, for which you were sentenced to five years' imprisonment, and the present offending. However, while that is serious offending, there is not a history of such serious offending which would ordinarily be present in a case where preventive detention was under consideration. 3
4 [8] The second matter that I must take into account is the seriousness of the harm to the community caused by your offending. This is serious offending. There are a number of aggravating features of it to which counsel for the Crown has drawn attention. In relation to the injuring charge, that was premeditated and involved a degree of stalking. The motive for it was slight, in that it involved your considering that the victim had ignored you. You continued an attack notwithstanding her pleas not to hurt her. She was in a vulnerable situation, and it involved a degree of detention. She suffered some injuries and the attack appeared to have been sexually motivated. On the burglary charge, that occurred shortly after the first attack. It took place at night. It involved entry into a private dwelling, and it was sexually motivated. Those offences have caused serious harm, as the victim impact statements, which I have read, show. Nevertheless, again I consider that the harm and the nature of the offences is at the lower end of the scale of what one would expect to encounter where preventive detention is under consideration. [9] The third matter that I must take into account is any information indicating a tendency to commit serious offences in future. Here your prognosis is bleak. The psychological report which has been obtained gives an assessment of your potential to re-offend. Three tests were conducted. The risk of re-conviction and risk of reimprisonment test by the Department of Corrections indicated a moderately high risk of serious recidivism within five years of release, although the report author stresses the opinion that that score under-estimates your risk of further sexual offending. The Static 99 test indicated a high risk of sexual or violent re-offending after release into the community. That probability is based on the static risk predictors which are involved in that form of testing. The Sex Offender Need Assessment Rating test was also conducted. The report writer notes that you indicated difficulties with sexual self-regulation and general self-regulation, indicated that you had a preference for younger women, and are most likely to come in contact with potential victims of sexual offending during a burglary. The report writer notes that you recently participated in the Kia Mamma programme. That programme has a high success rate in terms of its treatment, and there are very low re-offending rates after participation in it. But your offending occurred within seven weeks after completing that programme. 4
5 [10] The psychiatric report also assesses your risk of re-offending, and the writer expresses the opinion that your behavioural profile indicates that you carry a high risk of committing further crimes. He recommends that you receive close supervision when you return back to the community and that you would benefit from drug and alcohol counselling. [11] So on that factor which I must take into account the information indicates a strong tendency to commit serious offences in the future. [121 The fourth matter that I must consider is whether there have been efforts to address the causes of your offending. The psychologist's report refers to your efforts to address the cause of offending. He states that you want to return to Kia Mamma for further treatment, that you did not get to finish the maintenance portion of the programme and believe that this will prevent fiuther offending. However, as counsel for the Crown has noted, there is a real question as to whether your acceptance of the lessons learned from the Kia Marama programme is a real taking on board of those lessons or simply an ability to verbalise what you have learned without drawing the appropriate message from it. [13] The next matter that I must consider is the principle that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable if this provides adequate protection for society. Your counsel submits that this indicates that a sentence of preventive detention is a sentence of last resort. That is not the position as the decisions of the Court of Appeal in R v Leitch [1998] 1 NZLR 420 and in R v C [2003] 1 NZLR 30, to which I have been referred, make clear. Nonetheless it does clearly indicate that, where protection can be provided adequately by a lengthy determinate sentence, that is to be preferred. [14] There is one factor in your case which, in my view, would make a determinate sentence preferable if that were consistent with adequate protection, and that is your age. It would be a very serious matter to subject you to an indeterminate sentence and to recall for life at your comparatively young age if that can be avoided. As your counsel submits, it would be a crushing psychological blow to impose such a sentence on you. Any hope that there may be of remedy of your situation would, 5
6 in my view, be crushed out by the imposition of such a sentence. At your age there must be the prospect that you are not so set in a pattern of conduct as to be beyond the hope of change. [15] So, weighing all those factors up, I am satisfied that preventive detention should not be imposed in your case. Your bleak prognosis for likely re-offending is, in my view, outweighed by your age and the fact that this offending, and your previous offending, though serious, is not of the seriousness usually found where a sentence of preventive detention is imposed. And so, while I recognise the high risk of re-offending, I consider that this offending should be met with a finite sentence. [16] You must understand that this is a final chance. You must change your attitudes and take on board the treatment programmes that you will receive. You have sufficient intelligence and understanding to be able to take those messages on board. What is required is a change of attitude so that you have a willingness to take those on board. In not imposing preventive detention on you, I am expressing the hope that you are able to take those messages on board. You have all your life before you if you do. If you do not, your prospect is bleak indeed. I would ask that these remarks and the reports be drawn to the attention of the prison authorities so that whatever treatment is available can be made available to you. The psychologist's report notes that you could benefit from a programme but that he is not aware of any such programmes available. It is to be hoped that steps can be taken in your situation to devise the best possible available treatment options for you. [17] So, because I am not going to impose a sentence of preventive detention upon you, I must consider what the finite sentence should be. These offences, though they were committed on the same night, were quite separate. They require to be dealt with by cumulative sentences. [18] I deal first with the charge of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. I have already described the features of that offending. The injury caused or likely to have been caused is at the lower end of the scale of grievous bodily harm,
7 and no weapon was involved, but the sexual overtones add a serious dimension to this offending. I have already referred to the effect on the victim. [19] The only mitigating factors are, firstly, your guilty plea and, to a minor extent, your age. [20] I consider that an appropriate starting point for that offence, having regard to all the features of the offending and before taking into account your personal circumstances, both aggravating and mitigating, is six years. From that starting point, allowance must be made for factors personal to you. The aggravating features are your pattern of previous offending and the fact that this offending was committed while you were on parole. Those aggravating factors would justify an increase, but, in my assessment, that must be balanced to a limited extent by your age. The only factor calling for a credit is your guilty plea. I consider that an appropriate allowance, having regard to all of those aggravating and mitigating personal circumstances, is 18 months from the term of six years which I have identified. Accordingly, you will be sentenced to imprisonment for four and a half years on that charge. [21] Turning to the burglary charge, the most serious element of this offending is the sexual overtones. It has had a considerable effect on your victim, very understandably. I consider that an appropriate starting point, again taking into account the features of the offending but before considering your personal circumstances, is three and a half years. [22] As to your personal circumstances, again the only factor calling for a reduction is your guilty plea. Here I consider that an appropriate discount is one year. Accordingly, you are sentenced to two and a half years on the burglary charge. That is cumulative on the sentence on the injuring charge, so that the total sentence imposed is seven years. [23] I must consider whether to impose a minimum non-parole period. I may do so if I am satisfied that the circumstances of the offence are sufficiently serious to justify that course. In your case I am satisfied that it is necessary. Though I have 7
8 held that preventive detention is not justified in terms of necessity for the long-term protection of society, a period of immediate protection, such as would be given by a minimum non-parole period, is required. The maximum period that I can impose is one of two-thirds of the sentence. I consider that that is appropriate in your case. That gives an overall minimum period of four years and eight months. That is made up of a minimum period on the injuring charge of three years and on the burglary charge of one year and eight months. So that is the sentence that I impose upon you. A D MacKenzie J 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CRI THE QUEEN ROBERT JOHN BROWN SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREWS J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CRI 2005-020-003954 THE QUEEN v ROBERT JOHN BROWN Hearing: 30 July 2008 Appearances: C R Walker for the Crown D H Quilliam for the Prisoner Judgment: 30
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT ROTORUA CRI [2017] NZDC 3345
EDITORIAL NOTE: NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT ROTORUA CRI-2016-063-001647 [2017] NZDC 3345 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor v MANU HENARE Defendant Hearing:
More informationTHE QUEEN JOHN MICHAEL COCKER. Counsel: K Stone for the Crown I M Antunovic for the Accused
NOT RECOMMENDED IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CRI-2004-085-1865 WELLINGTON REGISTRY THE QUEEN JOHN MICHAEL COCKER Counsel: K Stone for the Crown I M Antunovic for the Accused Sentencing: 15 October
More informationAppellant. JOHN DAVID WRIGHT Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA831/2013 [2014] NZCA 119 BETWEEN AND THE QUEEN Appellant JOHN DAVID WRIGHT Respondent Hearing: 12 March 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Wild, Goddard and Clifford
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: SOME NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED.
EDITORIAL NOTE: SOME NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU CRI-2016-092-011259 [2017] NZDC 10782 THE QUEEN v ISAIAH MICHAEL PEKA Hearing: 24 May 2017
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC SHAUN JOHN BOLTON Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV-2016-409-000046 [2016] NZHC 1297 BETWEEN AND SHAUN JOHN BOLTON Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 14 June 2016 Appearances: D J
More informationTHE QUEEN. D M Wilson QC for Crown C M Clews for Prisoner SENTENCE OF RANDERSON J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY T.013648 THE QUEEN V BOWEN PUTOA NEHA MANIHERA Date: 3 February 2003 Counsel: Sentence: D M Wilson QC for Crown C M Clews for Prisoner Four years imprisonment
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2016] NZHC 254 THE QUEEN STEAD NUKU NIGEL JOHN LAKE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI-2015-044-002617 [2016] NZHC 254 THE QUEEN v STEAD NUKU NIGEL JOHN LAKE Hearing: 24 February 2016 Appearances: S McColgan for the Crown R M Mansfield
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA142/07 [2007] NZCA 424 THE QUEEN v GEORGE DARREN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 1018 THE QUEEN REBEL WAITOHI. K A Stoikoff for Prisoner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI-2013-044-1109 [2014] NZHC 1018 THE QUEEN v Hearing: 15 May 2014 REBEL WAITOHI Appearances: T M Cooper for Crown K A Stoikoff for Prisoner Sentence:
More informationKARL MURRAY BROWN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Ellen France, MacKenzie and Mallon JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA686/2013 [2014] NZCA 93 BETWEEN AND KARL MURRAY BROWN Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 18 February 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Ellen France, MacKenzie
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 3274 TELEISHA MCLAREN. S N McKenzie for Crown
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CRI-2014-425-000043 [2014] NZHC 3274 TELEISHA MCLAREN v Hearing: 15 December 2014 R Appearances: H T Young for Appellant S N McKenzie for Crown Judgment:
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI [2017] NZHC 2279 THE QUEEN PATRICK DIXON
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI-2016-092-012355 [2017] NZHC 2279 THE QUEEN v PATRICK DIXON Hearing: 20 September 2017 Counsel: L P
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE CRI [2018] NZHC 770. Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE CRI-2018-483-1 [2018] NZHC 770 BETWEEN AND RUBEN HAWEA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 17 April 2018
More informationScenario 1: domestic burglary (Theft Act 1968 (section 9))
Sentencing scenarios Use the sentencing guideline to decide what sentence each of these offenders should get. Scenario 1: domestic burglary (Theft Act 1968 (section 9)) Rachel is a second year university
More informationCitation: R. v. Long Date: PESCTD 87 Docket: S-1-GC-71 Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: R. v. Long Date: 20011030 2001 PESCTD 87 Docket: S-1-GC-71 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN -against- JAMES
More informationAggravating factors APPENDIX 2. Summary
APPENDIX 2 Aggravating factors Summary This guideline deals with those factors that may not be specifically identified in the applicable offencebased guideline, but may still be relevant to sentence depending
More informationSexual Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE
Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents Applicability of guideline 7 Rape and assault offences 9 Rape 9 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (section 1) Assault by penetration 13 Sexual
More informationI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA116/2017 [2018] NZCA 477. CHRISTOPHER ROBERT HALPIN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY SS 203 AND 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE
More informationDEFINITIVE GUIDELINE. Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline
DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline Contents Applicability of guideline 7 Rape and assault offences 9 Rape Sexual Offences Act 2003 (section 1) 9 Assault by penetration Sexual Offences
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA198/2016 [2017] NZCA 404. GEORGE CHARLIE BAKER Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Hearing: 31 July 2017
NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT IN OFFENDING OF 27 AUGUST 2009 REMAINS IN FORCE. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC CHANTELL PENE NGATIKAI Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI 2014-004-000413 [2014] NZHC 3294 BETWEEN AND CHANTELL PENE NGATIKAI Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 16 December 2014 Appearances:
More informationAssault Definitive Guideline
Assault Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents For reference Assault only. Definitive Guideline 1 Applicability of guideline 2 Causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily
More informationNEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2017] NZLCDT 39 LCDT 023/17. The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2017] NZLCDT 39 LCDT 023/17 UNDER The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN HAWKE S BAY STANDARDS COMMITTEE Applicant AND KRIS ANTHONY DENDER
More informationCriminal Law Guidebook - Chapter 12: Sentencing and Punishment
The following is a suggested solution to the problem on page 313. It represents an answer of an above average standard. The ILAC approach to problem-solving as set out in the How to Answer Questions section
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI [2017] NZDC THE QUEEN JAE MOOK MOON HYUNG BOK LEE
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI-2016-004-000272 [2017] NZDC 17014 THE QUEEN v JAE MOOK MOON HYUNG BOK LEE Hearing: 2 August 2017 Appearances: F Culliney for the Crown P Hamlin for the Defendant Moon
More informationCrimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Bill 2007
First print New South Wales Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Bill 2007 Explanatory note This explanatory note relates to this Bill as introduced into Parliament. Overview of Bill The object of this
More informationThe Criminal Justice System: From Charges to Sentencing
The Criminal Justice System: From Charges to Sentencing The Key Principles The aim the system is to protect and to regulate society, to punish offenders and to offer rehabilitation; The Government, through
More informationCrimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Act 2002 No 90
New South Wales Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 92 and other Acts 2 Schedules
More informationIntimidatory Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE
Intimidatory Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents Applicability of guideline 4 Harassment (putting people in fear of violence) 5 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (section 4)
More informationSection 810. This booklet explains the 810 process, what your rights are and how to get legal help.
INFORMATION FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA Section 810 The Criminal Code of Canada allows a judge or justice of the peace to require you to enter into a recognizance (like a peace bond) if there
More informationReconviction patterns of offenders managed in the community: A 60-months follow-up analysis
Reconviction patterns of offenders managed in the community: A 60-months follow-up analysis Arul Nadesu Principal Strategic Adviser Policy, Strategy and Research Department of Corrections 2009 D09-85288
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC BENJAMIN DUNCAN ROSS Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2014-485-63 [2014] NZHC 2388 BETWEEN AND BENJAMIN DUNCAN ROSS Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 23 September 2014 Appearances: C
More informationAnnex C: Draft guidelines
Intimidatory Offences and Domestic abuse guidelines Consultation 53 Annex C: Draft guidelines Overarching Principles: Domestic Abuse Applicability of the Guideline In accordance with section 120 of the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Mullen [2006] QCA 317 PARTIES: R V MULLEN, Todd Kenneth (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 175 of 2006 DC No 3220 of 2005 DC No 1341 of 2006 DC No 1512 of 2006 DC No
More informationCHILDRENS COURT New South Wales
CHILDRENS COURT New South Wales Citation: R v DI Hearing dates: 14 February 2012 Date of Decision: 15 February 2012 Jurisdiction: Place of Decision: Criminal Maclean Childrens Court Judgment of: Magistrate
More informationSentencing remarks of Mr Justice Kerr. The Queen v Aaron Jenkins and Emma Butterworth. Preston Crown Court. 3 March 2016
Sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Kerr The Queen v Aaron Jenkins and Emma Butterworth Preston Crown Court 3 March 2016 1. You may both remain seated for the moment. I will deal first with your case, Mr
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY TO30332 Q U E E N RICHARD GEOFFREY BULL SENTENCE OF LAURENSON J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY TO30332 Q U E E N v RICHARD GEOFFREY BULL Hearing: 1-4 March 2004 Appearances: Mr Crayton for the Crown Mr Pyke for the Prisoner Judgment: 6 April 2004
More informationJUSTICES CLERKS SOCIETY SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE (CHIEF MAGISTRATE)
Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) JUSTICES CLERKS SOCIETY SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE (CHIEF MAGISTRATE) Youth Court Jurisdiction The Modern Approach July 2015 This is the joint advice of the Justices'
More informationVictims Rights and Support Act 2013 No 37
New South Wales Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 No 37 Contents Part 1 Part 2 Preliminary Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Definitions 2 Victims rights Division 1 Preliminary 4 Object of Part
More informationTHE CROWN JUNIOR SAMI. NOTES OF JUDGE FWM McELREA ON SENTENCING
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND THE CROWN v JUNIOR SAMI Hearing: 14 October 2005 Appearances: S McColgan for the Crown J Edgar for the Defendant NOTES OF JUDGE FWM McELREA ON SENTENCING [1] The defendant,
More informationS G C. Reduction in Sentence. for a Guilty Plea. Definitive Guideline. Sentencing Guidelines Council
S G C Sentencing Guidelines Council Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea Definitive Guideline Revised 2007 FOREWORD One of the first guidelines to be issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council related
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC 81. Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent (ORAL) JUDGMENT OF FAIRE J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI-2014-463-95 [2015] NZHC 81 BETWEEN AND PETER BILL GRAY Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 4 February 2015 Counsel: M McGhie for appellant
More informationProposal. Budget sensitive. In confidence. Office of the Minister of Justice. Chair. Cabinet Social Policy Committee REFORM OF FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW
Budget sensitive In confidence Office of the Minister of Justice Chair Cabinet Social Policy Committee REFORM OF FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW Paper Three: Prosecuting family violence Proposal 1. This paper is the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Douglas [2004] QCA 1 PARTIES: R v DOUGLAS, Gillian Jean (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 312 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: DELIVERED EX TEMPORE
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,051 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, TRAVIS NALL, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 113,051 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. TRAVIS NALL, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Reno District Court; JOSEPH
More informationSentencing Act Examinable excerpts of PART 1 PRELIMINARY. 1 Purposes
Examinable excerpts of Sentencing Act 1991 as at 10 April 2018 1 Purposes PART 1 PRELIMINARY The purposes of this Act are (a) to promote consistency of approach in the sentencing of offenders; (b) to have
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CvA. No. 43 OF 2001 BETWEEN STEVE WILLIAMS APPELLANT AND THE STATE RESPONDENT CORAM: L. Jones, J.A. M. Warner, J.A. A. Lucky, J.A. APPEARANCES: Mr.
More informationSummary of Investigation SiRT File # Referral from RCMP - PEI December 4, 2017
Summary of Investigation SiRT File # 2017-036 Referral from RCMP - PEI December 4, 2017 John L. Scott Interim Director June 12, 2018 Background: On December 4, 2017, SiRT Interim Director, John Scott,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Kolb [2007] QCA 180 PARTIES: R v KOLB, Peter Desmond (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 29 of 2007 DC 2585 of 2006 DC 3002 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING
More informationSentencing and the Correctional System. Chapter 11
Sentencing and the Correctional System Chapter 11 1 Once a person has been found guilty of committing a crime, the judge imposes a sentence, or punishment. Generally, the goals of sentencing are to punish
More informationRobbery Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE
Robbery Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents Applicability of guideline 2 Robbery street and less sophisticated commercial 3 Theft Act 1968 (section 8(1)) Robbery professionally planned commercial
More informationThe Test for Dangerousness
The Test for Dangerousness Prof Martin Wasik Keele University Background Sections 224 to 236 and schedules 15 and 15A to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provide measures for sentencing dangerous offenders.
More informationR v DOBSON & NORRIS. Central Criminal Court. 4 January Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Treacy
R v DOBSON & NORRIS Central Criminal Court 4 January 2012 Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Treacy The Offence 1. The murder of Stephen Lawrence on the night of 22 nd April 1993 was a terrible and evil
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Jones [2008] QCA 181 PARTIES: R v JONES, Matthew Kenneth (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 73 of 2008 DC No 58 of 2008 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationNO MEANS NO. Understanding Consent to Sexual Activity. Public Legal Education and Information Service of New Brunswick
NO MEANS NO Public Legal Education and Information Service of New Brunswick This pamphlet provides information on what is meant by the age of consent to sexual activity and an overview of Canada s laws
More informationThe Queen. - v - DYLAN JACKSON. Sentencing Remarks of the Hon. Mr. Justice Picken. 10 December 2015
In the Crown Court at Nottingham The Queen - v - DYLAN JACKSON Sentencing Remarks of the Hon. Mr. Justice Picken 10 December 2015 1. After a trial lasting some eleven days or so including jury deliberations,
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA254/2014 [2015]
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TAURANGA CRI [2016] NZDC NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TAURANGA CRI-2015-070-003935 [2016] NZDC 15620 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor v ROYCE THOMAS MATOE Defendant Hearing: 16 August 2016 Appearances:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC PAUL ANDREW HAMPTON Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI-2014-463-000062 [2014] NZHC 2423 PAUL ANDREW HAMPTON Appellant v Hearing: 1 October 2014 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Appearances: Rebecca Plunket
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) THE QUEEN AND. 2012: April17
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) SAINT LUCIA CRIMINAL CASE NO. SLUCRD 2009/0429 0431 BETWEEN: THE QUEEN AND Claimant MARC ST ROSE Defendant Appearances: Mr. Alfred
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI [2017] NZDC THE QUEEN TULUA DANIEL TANOAI (AKA) ARETA MARK TANOAI
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI-2017-004-004019 [2017] NZDC 20334 THE QUEEN v TULUA DANIEL TANOAI (AKA) ARETA MARK TANOAI Hearing: 8 September 2017 Appearances: A Linterman for the Crown M Pecotic
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA135/03 THE QUEEN ROGER HOWARD MCEWEN
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA135/03 THE QUEEN v ROGER HOWARD MCEWEN Hearing: 19 June 2003 Coram: Glazebrook J Heath J Doogue J Appearances: D G Harvey for Appellant M F Laracy for Crown Judgment:
More informationCRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (N0. 2) ACT 2000 BERMUDA 2000 : 23 CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (N0. 2) ACT 2000
BERMUDA 2000 : 23 [Date of Assent 11 July 2000] [Operative Date ] WHEREAS it is expedient to amend the Criminal Code Act 1907 to make further provision with respect to sex offenders and violent offenders:
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT PALMERSTON NORTH CRI [2018] NZDC 1234 THE QUEEN MICKAL JAMES HAMMOND. S Lance for the Defendant
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT PALMERSTON NORTH CRI-2016-054-000949 [2018] NZDC 1234 THE QUEEN v MICKAL JAMES HAMMOND Hearing: 25 January 2018 Appearances: J Harvey for the Crown S Lance for the Defendant Judgment:
More informationApplication for the Northampton County Treatment Continuum Alternative to Prison (TCAP)
Application for the Northampton County Treatment Continuum Alternative to Prison (TCAP) 6 South 3 rd Street, Suite 403, Easton, PA 18042 Phone: (610) 923-0394 ext 104 Fax: (610) 923-0397 lcollins@lvintake.org
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TOKOROA CRI [2017] NZDC NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor. BANABA KAITAI Defendant
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TOKOROA CRI-2016-063-004445 [2017] NZDC 6093 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor v BANABA KAITAI Defendant Hearing: 22 March 2017 Appearances:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Kynuna [2019] QSC 76 PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v DIRK GREGORY KYNUNA (respondent)
More informationCriminal Sexual Abuse & Abusive Sexual Contact Scenarios Federal Sentencing Guidelines Application
Criminal Sexual Abuse & Abusive Sexual Contact Scenarios Federal Sentencing Guidelines Application United States Sentencing Commission Office of Education & Sentencing Practice L. Russell Rusty Burress
More informationOnce charged with an offence, an accused can argue a number of different defences. In general, a defence is a lawful excuse, explanation, or
Law 12 Unit Once charged with an offence, an accused can argue a number of different defences. In general, a defence is a lawful excuse, explanation, or circumstance that can be used by an accused to show
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC 2357 THE QUEEN FABIAN JESSIE MIKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2013-009-001924 [2013] NZHC 2357 THE QUEEN v Hearing: 10 September 2013 FABIAN JESSIE MIKA Appearances: P J Shamy and MAJ Elliott for Crown J
More informationGARRETT TIMOTHY BIELEFELD
[02] QCA 369 COURT OF APPEAL WILLIAMS JA JERRARD JA HELMAN J CA No 59 of 02 THE QUEEN v. GARRETT TIMOTHY BIELEFELD Applicant BRISBANE..DATE 9/09/02 JUDGMENT MR N V WESTON (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland)
More informationCONTENTS. Introduction Part 1: The nature of crime. Part 4: Sentencing and punishment. Part 2: The criminal investigation process
CONTENTS Introduction Part 1: The nature of crime 1.1 The meaning of crime 6 1.2 The elements of crime: actus reus, mens rea 8 1.3 Strict liability offences 10 1.4 Causation 12 1.5 Categories of crime
More informationDangerous Dog. Offences Definitive Guideline
Dangerous Dog DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Offences Definitive Guideline Revised - Contents Applicability of Guidelines 2 Dog dangerously out of control in any place where death is caused Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
More informationColorado Legislative Council Staff
Colorado Legislative Council Staff Distributed to CCJJ, November 9, 2017 Room 029 State Capitol, Denver, CO 80203-1784 (303) 866-3521 FAX: 866-3855 TDD: 866-3472 leg.colorado.gov/lcs E-mail: lcs.ga@state.co.us
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Riddler [2011] QSC 24 ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v ROBERT LESLIE RIDDLER (respondent)
More informationIn the Courtroom What to expect if your son/daughter with a learning disability has to go to court
In the Courtroom What to expect if your son/daughter with a learning disability has to go to court Serena Brady & Glynis Murphy Other booklets in the series: SAFER-IDD info At the Police Station Information
More informationA GUIDE TO CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY (CICA) CLAIMS
A GUIDE TO CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY (CICA) CLAIMS What is the CICA? The CICA is a government-funded Scheme, designed to compensate blameless victims of violent crime, which includes sexual
More informationCRIMINAL LITIGATION PRE-COURSE MATERIALS
Legal Practice Course 2014-2015 CRIMINAL LITIGATION PRE-COURSE MATERIALS Copyright Bristol Institute of Legal Practice, UWE AN INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINAL LITIGATION 1. Introduction: You will be studying
More informationCriminal Litigation Accreditation Scheme Standards of competence for the accreditation of solicitors representing clients in the magistrates court
Criminal Litigation Accreditation Scheme Standards of competence for the accreditation of solicitors representing clients in the magistrates court Contents Part 1 Underpinning knowledge...3 1.1 An understanding
More informationInformation Sharing Protocol
Information Sharing Protocol Young Persons with Status under the Youth Criminal Justice Act LEARNING SOLICITOR GENERAL Message from the Ministers The Information Sharing Protocol provides a provincial
More informationCriminal and Family Law ENG 04 FAMILY LAW FOR WOMEN IN ONTARIO. All Women. One Family Law. Know your Rights.
4 Criminal and Family Law ENG 04 FAMILY LAW FOR WOMEN IN ONTARIO All Women. One Family Law. Know your Rights. CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAW Criminal and Family Law This booklet is meant to give you a basic understanding
More information77th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session. Enrolled. House Bill 2549
77th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2013 Regular Session Enrolled House Bill 2549 Introduced and printed pursuant to House Rule 12.00. Presession filed (at the request of House Interim Committee on Judiciary)
More informationIN HER MAJESTY'S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND THE QUEEN. -v- ROBERT MAGILL
IN HER MAJESTY'S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND ---------- THE QUEEN -v- ROBERT MAGILL ---------- HUTTON LCJ This is an appeal against sentences imposed by His Honour Judge Watt QC at Newtownards
More informationSentencing Factors that Limit Judicial Discretion and Influence Plea Bargaining
Sentencing Factors that Limit Judicial Discretion and Influence Plea Bargaining Catherine P. Adkisson Assistant Solicitor General Colorado Attorney General s Office Although all classes of felonies have
More informationMEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH
MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH April 28, 2016 16-09 No Charges Approved for Force Used in Arrest by Vancouver Police Victoria - The Criminal Justice Branch (CJB), Ministry of Justice, announced
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Sambai [03] QCA 42 PARTIES: R v SAMBAI, Lucas Londe (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 352 of 02 DC No of 02 DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Randerson, Heath and Asher JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Heath J)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA281/2013 [2013] NZCA 623 BETWEEN AND IORITANA TUAU Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 18 November 2013 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Randerson, Heath and Asher
More informationSuperior Court of Washington For Pierce County
Superior Court of Washington For Pierce County State of Washington, Plaintiff vs.. Defendant No. Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty to Sex Offense (STTDFG) 1. My true name is:. 2. My age is:. 3.
More informationCriminal Code CRIMINAL CODE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL, 2013 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES
BELIZE: CRIMINAL CODE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL, 2013 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES 1. Short title. 2. Amendment of section 12. 3. Repeal and substitution of section 25. 4. Amendment of section 45. 5. Repeal and
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR Citation: R. v. Martin, 2018 NLCA 12 Date: February 22, 2018 Docket: 201701H0055 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN APPELLANT AND: SKYE MARTIN RESPONDENT
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Strickland [2003] QCA 184 PARTIES: R v STRICKLAND, Wayne Robert (applicant) FILE NOS: CA No 25 of 2003 DC No 279 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationBladed Articles and Offensive Weapons
Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Definitive Guideline Contents Applicability of guideline 2 Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons 3 Possession Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons
More informationJUDGMENT. R v Smith (Appellant)
Trinity Term [2011] UKSC 37 On appeal from: [2010] EWCA Crim 530 JUDGMENT R v Smith (Appellant) before Lord Phillips, President Lord Walker Lady Hale Lord Collins Lord Wilson JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 20 July
More informationS G C. Assault and other offences against the person. Definitive Guideline. Sentencing Guidelines Council
S G C Sentencing Guidelines Council Assault and other offences against the person Definitive Guideline FOREWORD In accordance with section 170(9) of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003, the Sentencing
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO THIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS]. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU CRI [2017] NZDC 25779
EDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO THIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS]. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU CRI-2015-004-017104 [2017] NZDC 25779 THE QUEEN v SHEN ZHANG ZHONG SHU HAN Hearing: 13 November
More informationCore Worker Exemption Application Guidance for Individuals
Core Worker Exemption Application Guidance for Individuals About this guide This guide will help you to complete the Core Worker Exemption Application Form. It provides information about the Core Worker
More information[2001] QCA 54 COURT OF APPEAL. McMURDO P THOMAS JA WILSON J. No 238 of 2000 THE QUEEN. Applicant BRISBANE JUDGMENT
[2001] QCA 54 COURT OF APPEAL McMURDO P THOMAS JA WILSON J No 238 of 2000 THE QUEEN v S Applicant BRISBANE..DATE 21/02/2001 JUDGMENT 1 21022001 T3/FF14 M/T COA40/2001 THE PRESIDENT: Justice Wilson will
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacLean, 2015 NSPC 70. v. Nathan Fred Grant MacLean SENTENCING DECISION
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacLean, 2015 NSPC 70 Date: 2015-10-15 Docket: 2825618 Registry: Pictou Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Nathan Fred Grant MacLean SENTENCING DECISION Restriction
More information