Anderson v The King - [2023] NZHC 1165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-409-42

[2023] NZHC 1165

BETWEEN
GREGORY JOHN ANDERSON

Appellant

AND

THE CROWN

Respondent

Hearing: 27 April 2023

Appearances:

R A Peters for the Appellant C C White for the Respondent

Judgment:

16 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF HARLAND J

Introduction

[1] On 29 March 2023, Mr Anderson was sentenced by Judge Gilbert in the District Court to a term of two years and six months’ imprisonment,1 having pleaded guilty to a charge of taking part in the management of a company between 9 December 2016 and 25 March 2020 while he was prohibited from doing so.2 The maximum penalty for this offence is a term of five years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding
$200,000.3

[2] Mr Anderson appeals to this Court on the grounds that the starting point adopted by the Judge was too high, the uplift to reflect his previous offending was excessive, insufficient discounts were provided and an end sentence of home detention was appropriate but was not imposed.

1      R v Anderson [2023] NZDC 6082.
2      Companies Act 1993, s 382.
3      Companies Act, s 373(4).

ANDERSON v R [2023] NZHC 1165 [16 May 2023]

[3] The Crown submits that the sentence was within range and therefore the appeal ought to be dismissed.

[4] Appeals against sentence are allowed as of right by s 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and must be determined in accordance with s 250 of that Act. An appeal against sentence may only be allowed by this Court if it is satisfied that there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed.4 The focus is not on the process by which the sentence was reached, but on the correctness of the end result.5 In making this assessment, appellate courts do not interfere with the legitimate exercise of judicial discretion or indulge in mere tinkering with the sentence.

[5] I have decided to dismiss the appeal. This judgment sets out my reasons for doing so.

Factual background

[6] Mr Anderson originally faced four charges, however, two were alternative charges. He elected trial by jury on 23 January 2020. Mr Anderson pleaded guilty to charge two in the Crown Charge List dated 16 March 2022.

[7] As Mr Anderson pleaded guilty to the charge, the facts upon which he was sentenced were contained in a summary of facts. The Judge referred to the relevant facts in his sentencing decision.

Summary of facts - issues

[8] Mr White, for the respondent, was concerned to clarify the Judge’s observation at para [3] of the sentencing notes that the summary of facts for the charge Mr Anderson had pleaded guilty to had remained unchanged over the years. Mr White provided a copy of a previous summary of facts, which had been available prior to Mr Anderson’s guilty plea, and he helpfully highlighted the parts of the former summary of…

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 Anderson v The King

Details

AGLC: Anderson v The King [2023] NZHC 1165
Case: [2023] NZHC 1165
Decision Date: 16 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Anderson v The King, the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, considered an appeal against the sentence imposed on Mr Gregory John Anderson for taking part in the management of a company while prohibited. Mr Anderson had pleaded guilty to a charge under the Companies Act 1993, which carried a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $200,000. The District Court sentenced Mr Anderson to a term of two years and six months’ imprisonment. The appeal centred on the starting point for sentencing, the uplift for previous convictions, the discount for a guilty plea, and the appropriateness of the sentence. The Crown argued that the sentence was within range and should be upheld. The appeal court found that the starting point adopted by the District Court was at the upper end of the appropriate range, the uplift for previous convictions was proportionate, and the discount for the guilty plea was generous. The court concluded that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders