Archer v Police - [2024] NZHC 1968

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000197

[2024] NZHC 1968

BETWEEN
TRAVIS ARCHER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 17 June 2024

Appearances:

C Fredric for the Appellant R Vercoe for the Respondent

Judgment:

17 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 July 2024 at 11 am Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

C Fredric, Barrister, Auckland
R Vercoe, KFW, Crown Solicitor Manukau

ARCHER v POLICE [2024] NZHC 1968 [17 July 2024]

[1] On 18 April 2024, Judge GA Andrée Wiltens sentenced Mr Archer to three years’ imprisonment.1 The sentence related to two tranches of charges accrued in 2023 and 2024. The 2023 charges are: burglary (x 2),2 theft over $1,000 (x 5),3 theft between $500–$1,000 (x 4),4 theft under $500 (x 17),5 breach of parole conditions (x 1)6 and intentional damage (x 1).7 The 2024 charges are: burglary (x 1), theft over
$1,000 (x 7) and theft under $500 (x 4).

[2] Mr Archer appeals his sentence. The sole issue on appeal is whether the sentence was manifestly excessive because the starting point was too high. The appeal is opposed by the Crown.

Background and offending

[3] Mr Archer is only 30 years old but has amassed over 70 convictions for a variety of offences including a large number of dishonesty crimes since 2013.

[4] Mr Archer was sentenced for a range of property-related and driving offences on 10 March 2023, for which he received an end sentence of one year and nine months’ imprisonment. He was released from custody on standard parole conditions on 3 May 2023. Eight days later he embarked on the offending spree which is the subject of this appeal.

[5] On 26 separate occasions between 11 May 2023 and 20 August 2023, Mr Archer committed theft in various retail stores in Auckland, mainly of alcohol, food, and tools. On two occasions in July 2023, Mr Archer entered Smith & Caughey’s and took items valued at approximately $400 and $900 without paying. This led to two charges of burglary as he had been earlier trespassed from that store.

[6] Mr Archer also failed to report to his probation officer on multiple occasions and on 8 June 2023, he was charged with breaching parole conditions. The charge as

1      New Zealand Police v Archer [2024] NZDC 8690 [sentencing decision].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231. Maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(b). Maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(c). Maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(d). Maximum penalty of 3 months’ imprisonment.
6      Parole Act 2002, s 71. Maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment or fine not exceeding $2,000.
7      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11. Maximum penalty of 3 months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.

to intentional damage resulted from Mr Archer spray painting the wall of a…

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 Archer v Police

Details

AGLC: Archer v Police [2024] NZHC 1968
Case: [2024] NZHC 1968
Decision Date: 17 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Travis Archer appealed against his three-year imprisonment sentence imposed by the Manukau District Court for a series of property-related offences committed in 2023 and 2024. The appeal's sole issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive due to an excessively high starting point. Archer argued that a starting point of three years and three months would have been more appropriate, while the Crown contended that the starting point was within an acceptable range. The appeal hinged on determining the correct starting point under the Moses v R sentencing methodology.

The Court considered the submissions of both parties and re-evaluated the appropriate global starting point. Archer's offending, while extensive and repetitive, was unsophisticated and occurred in broad daylight, suggesting a lesser starting point. However, the Crown argued that the sheer scale of Archer's offending warranted a starting point close to the statutory maximum for the most serious charges. The Court concluded that a starting point of 30 months was appropriate, considering the scale and seriousness of the offences. After applying the relevant discounts for guilty pleas and personal factors, and adding the appropriate uplifts, the Court arrived at a final sentence of two years and 10 months, which was not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders