Aldridge v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 278

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2021-483-000003

[2021] NZHC 278

BETWEEN
PATRICIA ANN ALDRIDGE

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 23 February 2021

Appearances:

J H C Waugh for Appellant

M M Wilkinson-Smith for Respondent

Judgment:

25 February 2021

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 February 2021 at 3 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Ms Aldridge pleaded guilty to charges of failing to appear, possession of utensils for the purpose of consuming methamphetamine and five charges of burglary. She was sentenced on 9 December 2020 to three years’ imprisonment by Judge Crayton in the District Court at Whanganui.1 Ms Aldridge appeals her sentence on the basis the Judge misapplied Moses v R and the correct end sentence should have been one of two years and one month’s imprisonment.2

1 R v Aldridge [2020] NZDC 25590.
2 Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, (2020) 29 CRNZ 381.

ALDRIDGE v R [2021] NZHC 278 [25 February 2021]

Facts

[2] On 1 November 2018, Ms Aldridge entered a locked rural address at Kaitoke and took jewellery, including an engagement and wedding ring with a total value of
$4,000.

[3] Three weeks later, on 23 November 2018, Ms Aldridge went into the office at the Nazareth Rest Home, took a handbag from under a desk and removed items from inside including a wallet.

[4] On 19 December 2018, the police searched Ms Aldridge’s address in search of stolen property. They found a glass case with two glass pipes, a syringe, and numerous small methamphetamine point bags. These are the subject of the possession of utensils charge.

[5] On 12 December 2018, around mid-morning, Ms Aldridge entered a locked residential address in Whanganui, and took rings, a gold watch and some personal items of clothing and electrical goods. The total value of these was approximately
$10,000. The victim was insured but had to pay a $250 excess.

[6] On 14 December 2018 Ms Aldridge entered the back door of the Crafty Trout Brewery and took a backpack which was inside the shop. This contained a laptop, charger, an iPhone 5, two books, a wakeboard hoodie and makeup.

[7] The final burglary charge was representative as the Crown identified she was responsible for at least one burglary on 17 December 2018 (of a possible five committed on that day) taking goods up to the value of $5,000.

District Court decision

Sentencing Indication

[8] Ms Aldridge sought a sentencing indication which Judge Crayton gave on 30 September 2020. In this indication the Judge amongst other things noted, the value

of the property taken3, that the burglaries were of dwelling houses and, in some cases business premises, and all involved a high degree of premeditation. The financial loss and emotional impact on the victims was clear and Judge Crayton identified an appropriate starting point of four years for…

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 Aldridge v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Aldridge v The Queen [2021] NZHC 278
Case: [2021] NZHC 278
Decision Date: 25 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Aldridge v The Queen concerns a sentence imposed by Judge Crayton on Patricia Ann Aldridge. Ms Aldridge pleaded guilty to charges of failing to appear, possession of utensils for the purpose of consuming methamphetamine and five charges of burglary. Judge Crayton sentenced Ms Aldridge to three years’ imprisonment, which she appeals on the basis that the Judge misapplied the Moses v R test and that the correct end sentence should have been one of two years and one month’s imprisonment. The central legal issue in this case is whether the Judge applied the Moses v R sentencing methodology correctly and whether the sentence imposed was within an appropriate range.

The Court held that although the Judge may have erred in his mathematical calculations, the end sentence was within an appropriate range and was not manifestly excessive. The Court found that Ms Aldridge’s offending involved a high degree of planning, burglaries of several dwelling houses, and the removal of valuables of both high financial value and high sentimental value. The offending deeply affected some of the victims. The Court held that the sentence of three years imposed by Judge Crayton was within an appropriate range and reflected a reasonable approach to the sentencing principles to be applied. The appeal was dismissed.

This case highlights the importance of applying the correct sentencing methodology as established in Moses v R. The Court found that while mathematical calculations are important, they are not more important than the end sentencing result. In this case, the Court was satisfied that the final sentence reached by Judge Crayton was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

Orders