R v Patrick [2014] NZHC 1110 (8 May 2014)

Last Updated: 4 June 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-042-3170 [2014] NZHC 1110

THE QUEEN

v

_{ROGER PAUL PATRICK}

Counsel:	J M Webber for Crown J Rapley and S Rollo for Defendant
Sentencing:	8 May 2014

_{SENTENCING NOTES OF WILLIAMS J}

[1] Please stand Mr Patrick.

[2] So Sir you were found guilty by a jury on one count of male assaults female in that you hit Rachel Meaclem at Sequoia Lodge on 4 October 2010. You were of course discharged on two further counts by me, and the jury returned not guilty verdicts on seven counts. So it is my job to sentence you on the one count on which you were found guilty.

[3] The assault occurred in the context of an altercation at the Red Devils gang headquarters in Nelson on the evening of 2 October, and Rachel Meaclem retaliating to that perceived injustice (at least from her perspective) by setting fire to the headquarters’ gates early the following morning. There followed a barrage of what might delicately be called angry texts from Ms Meaclem about the situation, and then a couple of phone calls – you calling her, in which it seems she settles down a

_little.

R v PATRICK [2014] NZHC 1110 [8 May 2014]

[4] It was you who suggested a meeting. The Crown suggests that is manipulative – you were setting her up for the strike. It seems to me that is a credible narrative. On my take of what I heard of the evidence, including the intercepts, it seems clear that you were of the view that she was going to get a whack for this – it was her just desserts, and that was the first thing you did before moving on to the discussion. I suspect this was just the rules in the games that you play.

[5] In any event, Ms Meaclem said that at some point after she got there, you “hit” her. She was not sure whether it was a punch, but a single strike followed by the grabbing of her jaw to take control of her volatility. A bruise may have been caused but Ms Meaclem was not so sure about the timing of that. In any event, given the verdicts on all the other counts, I am bound to treat this as a one-off male assaults female.

[6] I accept the submission from your counsel that the relationship was a volatile one, and that Ms Meaclem herself was prone to that sort of volatility – she admitted it in evidence – very frankly and very honestly. And she also said on occasion she gave as good as she got. That is corroborated in some of the intercepted exchanges.

[7] You have some previous convictions but none of them particularly relevant to this matter, and all of them old.

[8] I am told you have completed a domestic violence programme last year. And, as your counsel says, you no longer have any contact with the Ms Meaclem so there is no issue there.

[9] As I have discussed with counsel, a signature aspect of the factual matrix surrounding this single blow is her payment of $2,000 to you in your position as president of the Red Devils, as a kind of fine. The jury rejected the blackmail allegation, but it seems to me reasonably clear that it was a fine, levied because of what you said, was the unprecedented nature of her behaviour.

[10] It also seems clear to me that Ms Meaclem has suffered emotional harm as a result of the events of which this strike was clearly a part. She has provided a

lengthy and eloquent discussion of the impact of these events (and your relationship) on her life. So this seems to me to be the sort of situation where some poetic justice is appropriate. She has suffered emotional harm, and you have been enriched by

$2,000 – you or your organisation. So it seems to me the penalty is that you be required to pay it back.

[11] I understand you can afford to pay it back at $50 a week and that is the basis upon which the matter should proceed. I do not propose to impose any further penalty.

_{[12] All right. Please stand down.}

Williams J