Legal Research
Cases
Auckram v Police

Auckram v Police

Case [2022] NZHC 1446 20 June 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2022-404-000101

[2022] NZHC 1446

BETWEEN
RYAN AUCKRAM

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 13 June 2022

Appearances:

R Mansfield QC for the Appellant F J McKechnie for the Respondent

Judgment:

20 June 2022

JUDGMENT OF TAHANA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 June 2022 at 3.00pm

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
R Mansfield QC, Barrister, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

AUCKRAM v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 1446 [20 June 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Auckram appeals against a sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment on the following charges in respect of which he pleaded guilty in the District Court at Waitakere:1

(a)Threatening to kill;2

(b)Assault on a person in a family relationship;3

(c)Wilful damage;4 and

(d)Burglary.5

[2] Mr Auckram appeals on the basis that the sentence is manifestly excessive and says the Judge erred by:

(a)adopting a starting point that was manifestly excessive;

(b)incorrectly applying an uplift for previous convictions after reductions for personal mitigating factors;

(c)giving insufficient weight to Mr Auckram’s personal mitigating factors; and

(d)not imposing a sentence of home detention.

[3] The Crown opposes the appeal and says the sentence was within range and is not manifestly excessive.

1      New Zealand Police v Auckram [2022] NZDC 5989.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 306. Maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 194A. Maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
4      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
5      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a). Maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

Factual background

[4] Mr Auckram and the victim were in a relationship for nine years. While they have been separated for eight years, they occasionally saw one another and were intimate.

Assault on a person in a family relationship, threatening to kill, and intentional damage

[5] Around midday on 30 June 2021, Mr Auckram arranged to meet the victim at her workplace at 10 pm. The victim subsequently advised Mr Auckram that she would be late and arrived at 11.30 pm. There she waited in her car.

[6] Mr Auckram arrived some 10 minutes later. He parked his van behind the victim’s car. He then sat in the front passenger seat of her car.

[7] Mr Auckram then began to verbally and physically abuse the victim for approximately 30 minutes. He accused her of having a sexual relationship with gang members and several of his associates. He then struck her left arm and back.

[8] Mr Auckram returned to his van. The victim locked her car doors. Mr Auckram demanded that she let him back in and kicked at the car. This dented the exterior.

[9] When the victim opened the driver’s side door, Mr Auckram punched at her arms. He also kicked her right thigh twice. These assaults caused bruising to her arms, shoulders and right thigh.

[10] Mr Auckram retrieved a crowbar from…

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 Auckram v Police

Details

AGLC: Auckram v Police [2022] NZHC 1446
Case: [2022] NZHC 1446
Decision Date: 20 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Ryan Auckram appealed against a sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment, which he received in the District Court for charges including threatening to kill, assault on a person in a family relationship, wilful damage, and burglary. The appeal was based on the claim that the sentence was manifestly excessive and the Judge made several errors in sentencing. The Crown opposed the appeal, asserting that the sentence was within range and not manifestly excessive. The key legal issues were whether the starting point, uplifts, and discounts applied by the Judge were appropriate. The court found that the Judge erred in not considering totality when applying an uplift for the assault and wilful damage charges, applying a 20% instead of a 25% discount for the guilty plea, and uplifting the sentence by six months’ imprisonment for previous convictions when a four-month uplift was appropriate. The court concluded that a sentence of six months’ home detention was appropriate, taking into account the rehabilitative efforts and community support available to the appellant. The appeal was allowed, the original sentence was quashed, and a sentence of six months’ home detention was substituted. The protection order for the victim remained in place.

Orders