Allen v The the King - [2022] NZHC 2407

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2022-409-000114

[2022] NZHC 2407

BETWEEN
SAVANNAH LINDA ALLEN

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 1 September 2022

Appearances:

K T White for the Appellant

G E R Alloway for the Respondent

Judgment:

20 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Introduction

[1] Savannah Allen pleaded guilty to a charge of being an accessory after the fact to aggravated robbery.1 She was sentenced to three and a half months’ home detention by Judge Garland on 17 June 2022, after his Honour declined an application for discharge without conviction.2 Ms Allen appeals the decision to not grant her a discharge without conviction. She alternatively appeals the sentence on the basis it was manifestly excessive.

Background

[2]The summary of facts stated:

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 71(1), 235(b), and 312: maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
2 R v Allen [2022] NZDC 11693.

ALLEN v R [2022] NZHC 2407 [20 September 2022]

CHARGE Aggravated Robbery (Accessory after the fact)

Crimes Act 1961 Section 235(b) & 71(1) Penalty: 14 years imprisonment

INTRODUCTION

At 8:55am on Sunday the 13^th of June 2021 an aggravated robbery was committed at the Keystone Dairy at 152 Keyes Road, New Brighton, Christchurch.

Tobacco products to the value of $5,000 were taken in this robbery.

The defendant in this matter, Savannah ALLEN is the partner of one of the defendants in the aggravated robbery matter Ethon BAKER-CLEVELAND.

CIRCUMSTANCES

The defendant in this matter, Savannah ALLEN has been in the company of BAKER-CLEVELAND since the aggravated robbery.

On Thursday 24 June 2021, the defendant was advised by Police that BAKER- CLEVELAND was sought and would be arrested by Police for four aggravated robberies.

The defendant then intentionally misled Police by advising them she was at a location that she was not at in order for her and BAKER-CLEVELAND to avoid arrest.

The defendant was with BAKER-CLEVELAND as he evaded-Police-at various locations where they were residing.

On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 the defendant was located at the Classique Lodge on Blenheim Road, Christchurch with BAKER-CLEVELAND where they had been residing for several days.

DEFENDANT COMMENTS

The defendant was spoken to Police [sic] and admitted being with BAKER- CLEVELAND throughout this time but denied deliberately helping the defendant to evade arrest.

The defendant has previously appeared before the Court. MVY693
07/07/2021

[3]Ms Allen first appeared in court on 7 July 2021.

[4] The charging document described the offence as being an accessory after the fact to robbery and cited ss 235(b) (aggravated robbery) and 71(1) (accessory after the fact) of the Crimes Act 1961. The charging document was amended. The date of the offence was changed from 13 June 2021 to between 13 and 24 June 2021. It was changed to a representative charge and the maximum penalty was changed from 14 years’ imprisonment to five.

[5] Ms Allen was remanded on bail on a number of occasions. In August 2021, there were two remands…

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 Allen v The the King

Details

AGLC: Allen v The the King [2022] NZHC 2407
Case: [2022] NZHC 2407
Decision Date: 20 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Allen v The King, the Court heard an appeal by Savannah Allen against her conviction for being an accessory after the fact to aggravated robbery, and the sentence imposed on her by the District Court. The appeal was heard by Nation J in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry. The appeal against the refusal of a discharge without conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against sentence was allowed. Allen was sentenced to one year’s supervision with the condition that she reside at an address approved by her probation officer and attend and complete any recommended intervention for alcohol and drug use to the satisfaction of a probation officer. The Court also directed that Allen’s conviction be recorded as being accessory after the fact (general). The Court found that the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending, but that the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles. The Court found that in the particular circumstances of the defendant, the rehabilitative approach should have been given priority and a lesser restrictive sentence should have been imposed. The imposition of a sentence of supervision would have provided the defendant with the regular oversight of contact with a probation officer which would have been of assistance to her in making the progress she said she was committed to. It may well have been appropriate for that to be coupled with community work as a way of holding her accountable for the harm she had done through making it more difficult for the Police to apprehend Mr Baker-Cleveland for the offending which she knew he had been involved in. The Court also found that the way in which Allen’s conviction was recorded was inaccurate, seriously unfair and with the potential to disadvantage her in any dealings she might have with government departments or other agencies that have access to her criminal record. The Court drew this to the attention of the Chief District Court Judge so he can bring it to the attention of the appropriate people within the Ministry of Justice.

Orders