Bartlett v Police - [2024] NZHC 1234

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2024-441-007

[2024] NZHC 1234

BETWEEN
TARANAKI BARTLETT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 16 May 2024

Counsel:

E J Forster for Appellant

M J M Mitchell for Respondent

Judgment:

17 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

[Sentence appeal]

Appeal against sentence

[1] Mr Bartlett appeals his sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment imposed in the Hastings District Court on 16 April 2024 for three charges of breaching a protection order. 1 The grounds of his appeal are that the starting point of 18 months was too high and there should not have been an uplift for his other offending against the same victim and for his criminal history in general.

The offending

[2] Mr Bartlett and the victim were in a relationship for about 18 years but were not living together or in a relationship at the time of the protection order breaches. They have two children together.

1 Police v Bartlett [2024] NZDC 8525. The charges are pursuant to the Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(b) and 112(1)(a) (maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment).

BARTLETT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 1234 [17 May 2024]

[3] The protection order has been in place since 24 June 2007. Mr Bartlett has 24 previous convictions for breaching the order.2 He also has a significant number of convictions for other offending against the victim; both for violent and sexual offending.

[4] The first protection order breach forming these charges occurred on 12 January 2024. Mr Bartlett arrived unannounced and uninvited to the victim’s home where she was eating a meal with the two children. He entered the home and approached the victim, hugging her from behind. He ended up staying the night. In the morning, she told Mr Bartlett to leave and that there would be no more contact. She also said she would call the Police. Mr Bartlett said he showed up because she was not responding to his friend requests or calls. He left when she said she would call the Police.3

[5] Then, between 12 and 14 January 2024, Mr Bartlett sent a number of abusive text messages to the victim, calling her very demeaning and derogatory names. On 13 January, he also made several phone calls to her over a period of about 90 minutes, which she did not answer.

The sentencing decision

[6] Judge Edwards began her decision by noting that the starting point for offending involving breach of a protection order is calculated to include previous breaches of the same protection order so as to reflect the ongoing pattern of unwanted contact.4 She recorded Mr Bartlett’s 24 previous convictions for breaching the order, as well as eight other convictions for breaching orders that applied to other women.5

[7] Turning to assess the seriousness of the breaches, the Judge acknowledged that, while none involved violence, the first involved Mr Bartlett walking into the victim’s home uninvited. There were three breaches…

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 Bartlett v Police

Details

AGLC: Bartlett v Police [2024] NZHC 1234
Case: [2024] NZHC 1234
Decision Date: 17 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Taranaki Bartlett, appeals his sentence of 16 months' imprisonment imposed by the Hastings District Court for breaching a protection order on three occasions. Bartlett's appeal contends that the starting point of 18 months was too high and that there should not have been an uplift for his other offending against the same victim and his criminal history in general. The appeal was heard by Grau J in the High Court of New Zealand at Napier.

The legal issues before the court were whether the starting point for Bartlett's sentence was correctly set at 18 months and whether the three-month uplift for his previous offending was appropriate. The court had to consider whether Bartlett's previous convictions, both for breaching the protection order and other violent offences against the same victim, justified the starting point and uplift. The court also had to determine if the end sentence of 16 months was manifestly excessive.

Grau J held that previous breaches of a protection order were relevant in assessing the culpability of an offender when setting an appropriate starting point. The court noted that breaches of a protection order could not be taken into account again when aggravating personal circumstances were assessed. The court found that the starting point of 18 months was not manifestly excessive, given Bartlett's 24 previous convictions for breaching the same protection order and his history of violent offending against the victim. The three-month uplift for previous offending was deemed appropriate to reflect the seriousness of Bartlett's conduct and to deter him from further offending. The end sentence of 16 months was considered to be within the appropriate range.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of 16 months' imprisonment was upheld.

Orders