Police v Marr [2016] NZDC 12154 (29 June 2016)

Last Updated: 31 August 2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT INVERCARGILL

CRI-2016-017-000172 [2016] NZDC 12154

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Prosecutor

v

JORDAN MARR

_Defendant

Hearing:	29 June 2016
Appearances:	Sergeant D Harvey for the Prosecutor S Claver on behalf of J Fraser for the Defendant
Judgment:	29 June 2016

_{NOTES OF JUDGE E M THOMAS ON SENTENCING}

_{A. Sentenced to four months imprisonment with special release condition.}

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v JORDAN MARR [2016] NZDC 12154 [29 June 2016]

_REASONS

The offending

[1] Mr Marr, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of assaulting your partner’s sister, a charge laid under the Summary Offences Act 1981. You have also pleaded guilty to one charge of threatening to cause grievous bodily harm to a District Court Judge.

[2] The maximum penalty for the Summary Offences Act charge is six months’ imprisonment as opposed to the more serious penalty that you would have been subject to had this been a charge laid under the Crimes Act 1961. Let me start with that incident first. You were together at home with your partner and her sister. You got into an argument. Your partner’s sister became involved. You reacted badly and violently. You placed your hand around her neck and grabbed hold of her in that way. You forced her down to the ground from where she was seated, and you pinned her to the floor.

[3] Fortunately, that is where that incident ended. But there are aggravating elements to it. By that I mean there are elements to it that make it a fairly serious incident. The most significant of those is that you put your hand around her neck. That act in itself is an extremely serious act of violence with potentially serious consequences. There were none here but you must recognise how strongly a Court will react to any incidence of somebody putting their hand around somebody else’s neck in that way during a violent confrontation. Just that act alone, adding to that the vulnerability of your partner’s sister in that situation, means that a starting point somewhere near the maximum would be warranted if you had any previous convictions for violence. You do, as it happens, regrettably. Not against the same victim, but that does not much matter.

[4] I turn to the second charge. You were waiting at the Gore District Court. You were understandably stressed and frustrated as people are passing through the Justice system often are. Your reaction to that, though, was very poorly judged and extremely inappropriate. While in the waiting room at the Gore District Court, you

threatened the District Court Judge. You used graphic and intimidating language. You said that you would “slit her throat”. I recognise that it was impulsive as opposed to premeditated. I recognise that you did not make the threat directly to the Judge. But you made it intending that it be heard by everyone who was in the waiting room. You made it intending that it be taken in the manner in which it was intended. It would have been extremely distressing to those who heard it. As the Provincial Court of Alberta in Canada has said, threats of this kind against Judges or Court officials is very serious. It is a direct challenge to the administration of justice

as a whole1.

[5] You, through the submissions advanced by your counsel, argue that an appropriate starting point to recognise that threat would be four months’ imprisonment. Reviewing those same authorities, I agree that this is a realistic assessment.

Starting point

[6] We do not just add one sentence to another sentence to arrive at a final figure. That would result in a starting point that is too high and not fair to you. What I need to do is stand back and look at the two incidents together and try to come up with a starting point that is a little fairer.

[7] Approaching it in that way, I take a starting point of seven months’

imprisonment.

Discounts

[8] You have pleaded guilty. You have expressed genuine remorse. I recognise to a small degree the stressful circumstances that you were under. I do recognise that you wished to apologise personally; that you wished to do Restorative Justice and it was not available. For all of that I am prepared to give you a discount of three

_months.

1 R v Vuozzo 2011 ABPC 133.

Home detention?

[9] The real question is whether you can serve that sentence by home detention as opposed to imprisonment. You have been given opportunities in the past to deal with your violent tendencies. You have breached some of those opportunities, regrettably. You had just finished a sentence of supervision, in fact, when you offended again. Against that background, there is no basis for imposing an electronically-monitored sentence. Imprisonment is the least restrictive outcome.

Result

[10] I sentence you on each charge to four months’ imprisonment. There will be a special release condition that will apply for six months past your sentence end date. It is the condition that is in the report dated 20 June 2016, that you do any appropriate assessment, treatment, counselling or programme directed by Community Probation.

E M Thomas

District Court Judge