R v Strickland [2017] NZDC 14704 (4 July 2017)

Last Updated: 15 November 2017

EDITORIAL NOTE: NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TAURANGA

CRI-2017-070-000985

THREE STRIKES WARNING [2017] NZDC 14704

THE QUEEN

v

_{[STEVEN STRICKLAND]}

Hearing:	4 July 2017
Appearances:	H Sheridan for the Crown B Hesketh for the Defendant
Judgment:	4 July 2017

_{NOTES OF JUDGE I D R CAMERON ON SENTENCING}

[1] [Steven Strickland] appears for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

[2] The facts are that at about 7.00 pm on Saturday 4 March 2017 the defendant was at the [name deleted] Motorcamp in [Location 1]. Several of his family members were there for a family reunion, including [the victim], who is the victim in this matter.

[3] The victim was near her tent at campsite [number deleted] when the defendant approached. He confronted her in relation to their [close family member’s] estate and the way he had been treated. At the time he was armed with two home-made weapons

_{and a glass Waiwera branded bottle.}

R v [STEVEN STRICKLAND] [2017] NZDC 14704 [4 July 2017]

[4] Each home-made weapon consisted of a small piece of wood with a long 7 cm stainless steel nail protruding through it at a 90 degree angle, able to be held and used in a similar fashion to a knuckle duster.

[5] The defendant attacked the victim with the home-made weapons and bottle, hitting her multiple times. The victim attempted to get away, moving towards her cousin’s tent several metres away. During this time the glass bottle broke and the defendant used the jagged neck of the bottle to strike her in a slashing fashion.

[6] The defendant followed the victim, stabbing her multiple times with the home- made weapon and bottle about her arms, legs, head and body. She ended up lying on her back with her legs raised trying to keep the defendant at bay.

[7] The victim cried out for help after a prolonged attack. Family members arrived and physically prevented the assault continuing by standing between the defendant and the victim. The victim was lying on the ground at the time.

[8] As a result of the incident the victim suffered the following injuries:

(a) A large laceration to her forehead requiring multiple stitches [details deleted].

(b) Nasal fractures [details deleted]

(c) A puncture wound to her neck/upper chest on the right hand side causing a pneumothorax. That is air in the cavity between the lungs and the chest, causing a partial lung collapse.

(d) A broken[ wrist] and small lacerations to the arm requiring a plate insertion to repair the fracture. Due to the severity of the fracture with one centimetre bone pulverisation the original plate did not hold and a larger plate, involving a second and subsequent surgery, was inserted in her wrist.

(e) A five centimetre laceration on the [hand] but without tendon or nerve damage.

(f) [hand] nerve damage and numbness. The exact reason for the numbness has not been established but is linked in some way to the wrist fracture.

(g) A laceration to the dorsal side of the [hand] with partial laceration to the ring finger and full laceration to the little finger extensor tendon, with associated nerve injury.

(h) Large lacerations to both legs but without nerve or tendon injury.

(i) A chunk of flesh cut from the [body part deleted] which cannot be stitched and requires constant dressing while the missing flesh slowly repairs itself.

(j) Small puncture wounds over her chest and back.

(k) Bruising to her face including two black eyes, torso, arms and legs.

(l) Concussion with significant memory loss.

[9] At the time of the preparation of the summary of facts the victim was undergoing hand therapy to regain the use of [details deleted]. The therapy is ongoing and six weeks post the incident the victim had limited use of her [hand] and could not lift any weight, including a shopping bag.

[10] The victim [name deleted] has read to the Court portions of her victim impact statement. She describes in some considerable detail the very serious injuries suffered by her and the lasting effect on her in relation to some of those injuries. As well and not unexpectedly there has been significant negative emotional harm suffered by her as a result of this horrific incident.

[11] As well I have read a statement pertaining to the [young witness, details deleted], who sadly witnessed the attack and it has certainly had a negative psychological impact on her as well.

[12] I have read the pre-sentence report in respect to the defendant. He is a 42 year old man. In my view he did not really express any real remorse for his offending. He clearly is highly resentful of [victim 1] in this matter. The defendant himself has a [teenage child] who is in the custody of his ex-partner.

[13] The defendant has a good work ethic, he has worked for the last 12 years at the

[details deleted] in Rotorua and prior to that was in [work industries deleted].

[14] I have read the positive references submitted on his behalf, as well as a reference from his previous employer, again which is positive.

[15] Of course I need to hold him accountable for his actions, denounce his conduct and deter others from committing what can only be described as a vicious and brutal sustained attack on his [victim], essentially unprovoked whatever his complaint in relation to his late father’s estate.

[16] I have had the benefit of detailed submissions by Ms Sheridan on behalf of the Crown and Mr Hesketh for the defence. I have also had the benefit of considering the authorities which Mr Hesketh has referred to, in particular the case of R v Shen,1 in the case of R v W.2. In terms of the aggravating factors on R v Taueki3 analysis, first there was of course the extreme violence. Here there was a sustained and persistent attack with weapons which continued even while the victim was lying defensive on the ground.

[17] Second there was of course the use of potentially lethal weapons, which included strikes to the head of the victim.

1 R v Shen [2017] NZCA 103

2 R v W 2016 NZHC 1076

3 R v Taueki [2005] NZCA 174; [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA)

[18] Next it was premeditated attack. It was quite simply vengeful. The defendant had deliberately travelled to the function with the home-made weapons in order to carry out this vicious beating.

[19] Lastly of course there were the serious and ongoing injuries sustained to the victim both physical and emotional. All these factors are present to a high degree in this case. In my view the offending falls within band two of R v Taueki case being a range for imprisonment of 9 to 14 years. Here there were three or more aggravating features and the combination of those features was particularly grave.

[20] I adopt a starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment. The defendant is entitled to a 25 percent discount for his guilty plea which realistically came at the earliest opportunity. I would increase that discount to 33 percent given that this defendant, now a 42 year old man, has no previous convictions whatsoever, has positive references and has had an excellent work ethic. That reduces the total to 80 months which translates to six years eight months’ imprisonment.

[21] There is the question of whether a minimum period of imprisonment should apply. In assessing this I note that the four aggravating factors were present to a high degree. This was quite simply pre-meditated, sustained violence causing extremely serious injury and combined with that there is a lack of insight or remorse into the offending, coupled with this defendant presenting as a high risk to the safety of others.

[22] I am satisfied that a minimum period of imprisonment is necessary to hold this defendant accountable for his despicable actions and in an attempt to deter him from future offending and to deter any other like minded individuals from this type of offending.

[23] Accordingly, under s 86(2) Sentencing Act 2002 I order that he be imprisoned for a minimum period of three years four months, which is 50 percent of the total sentence. With that order for a minimum period of imprisonment, he is convicted and sentenced to six years eight months’ imprisonment. The defendant has already received a three strikes warning.

[24] The victim requests that a s 123B Sentencing Act 2002 protection order be imposed in respect of the defendant. Mr Hesketh advises the Court that this is not opposed. It is necessary given the fact that this defendant clearly continues to hold resentment towards the victim. Accordingly, under that provision I make a protection order in favour of the victim.

I D R Cameron

District Court Judge