IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY
CRI-2015-412-000035 [2015] NZHC 2987
BETWEEN MARK EDWARD ANDREW
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
Hearing: 18 November 2015 Appearances:
J A Westgage for the Appellant
R D Smith for the RespondentJudgment:
27 November 2015
JUDGMENT OF NATION J
Introduction
[1] On 29 September 2014, Judge Phillips sentenced Mr Andrew to concurrent sentences for an effective term of two years and one month’s imprisonment on the following charges:1
(a) male assaults female;2
(b) intimidation;3
(c) two charges of burglary;4
(d) various charges of theft and obtaining by deception;5
1 Police v Andrew DC Dunedin CRI-2014-012-001409, 29 September 2014.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 194(b). Maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
3 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or
$2,000 fine.
4 Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(b). Maximum penalty ten years’ imprisonment.
5 Crimes Act 1961, ss 219, 223(d), 240 and 241. Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
ANDREW v POLICE [2015] NZHC 2987 [27 November 2015]
(e) failing to report to a probation officer;6 and
(f) breach of community work.7
[2] Judge Phillips gave Mr Andrew a sentencing indication on 25 September
2014. At the time, Mr Andrew was represented by Ms Saunderson-Warner. The Judge summarised the charges he faced and what was involved with the offending. He referred to Mr Andrew’s alcohol addiction as the main influence in all his offending. He referred to his prior criminal history and the submissions he had received from the police and Ms Saunderson-Warner. The Judge went through the views he would come to adopting the Taueki approach.8 He said the cumulative end sentence, after allowing for totality, would be two years and one month’s imprisonment.
[3] Mr Andrew pleaded guilty on 26 September 2014. He was sentenced on 29
September 2014.
[4] On 2 October 2015, Mr Andrew filed from prison his own notice of appeal against sentence. The notice of appeal indicated that he was appealing against sentences of more than two years for two burglaries. In his notice he said they should have been treated the same as shoplifting involving theft of property worth less than $500 and the maximum penalty would have been thus six months’ imprisonment.
Leave to appeal out of time
[5] Mr Andrew acknowledged that his appeal was out of time but sought an extension. His explanation for the delay was “lack of information provided by lawyer”. Mr Westgate, representing Mr Andrew on appeal, stressed that there would be no prejudice if leave was granted to bring the appeal.
[6] The police oppose the granting of leave in the particular circumstances of this case.
6 Sentencing Act 2002, s 71(1)(a). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $1,000 fine.
7 Sentencing Act 2002, s 71(1)(d). maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $1,000 fine.
8 R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA).
[7] Mr Smith, for the police, acknowledged that there would not be significant prejudice to the police in dealing with the appeal if…
Continue reading Andrew v Police
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Andrew v Police [2015] NZHC 2987
- Case
- [2015] NZHC 2987
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court considered the reasons for the delay, the merits of the proposed appeal, and the extent of the impact on others similarly affected and on the administration of justice. While Mr Andrew argued that his delay was due to a lack of information provided by his lawyer, the Court found his explanation unsatisfactory. The Court observed that Mr Andrew had the benefit of legal advice in relation to the sentencing indication and had legal representation throughout the process. The Court also found that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the totality of the offending and the need for deterrence and protection of the public. The Court concluded that there was little merit in the appeal and that granting leave would not be in the interests of justice. Therefore, Mr Andrew's application for leave to appeal was declined.
The final orders of the Court were that Mr Andrew's application for leave to appeal against his sentence was declined. The Court did not grant permission for Mr Andrew to appeal the sentence, and the original sentence of two years and one month’s imprisonment remained in place.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.