Bartlett v Police - [2016] NZHC 850

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIM PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-409-16 [2016] NZHC 850

BETWEEN
NATHAN JOHN BARTLETT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 27 April 2016

Appearances:

T Aickin for the Appellant
S E Burdes for the Respondent

Judgment:

2 May 2016

JUDGMENT OF DAVIDSON J

Introduction

[1] Mr Nathan Bartlett pleaded guilty to two charges of breaching a protection order1 and one charge of breaching prison release conditions.2 On 19 February 2016
His Honour Judge Couch sentenced him to 11 months imprisonment.3

[2] Mr Bartlett appeals against that sentence on the basis that home detention should have been imposed, and the Judge should have allowed further enquiry as to a
suitable address for that purpose.

1      Domestic Violence Act 1995, ss 19(2)(e), 49(1)(b) and (3).
2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 96(1).
3      Police v Bartlett [2016] NZDC 2701.

BARTLETT v NZ POLICE [2016] NZHC 850 [2 May 2016]

Background

[3] In February 2015 a final protection order was issued by the Family Court in

favour of Mr Bartlett’s ex-partner.

[4] In July that year Mr Bartlett breached the protection order three times. For that he was sentenced to imprisonment.

[5] On 21 September 2015 Mr Bartlett was released from prison. A release condition was imposed not to contact or communicate with his former partner. The recent spate of offending followed soon after.

6 October 2015 offending

[6] On 6 October Mr Bartlett went to the victim’s place of work. He engaged in a discussion, before verbally abusing her. The appellant left when the police were called. Thirty minutes after leaving the premises Mr Bartlett telephoned her and continued to abuse her. This resulted in the first charge of breaching a protection order.

19 October offending

[7] On 19 October the appellant sent an email to the victim asking her to contact him. This constituted a further breach of the protection order, as well as constituting a breach of release conditions as no consent had been given by the probation officer.

Summary of sentencing

[8] His Honour Judge Couch took a starting point of 14 months imprisonment. He reduced the sentence by three months for the relatively prompt guilty pleas, giving a total sentence of 11 months imprisonment.

[9] His Honour decided against a sentence of home detention, and said:

[8] As that is less than two years I must consider whether any less restrictive sentence would be appropriate. In my view it would not. Given

your history of offending and your continued total disregard for Court orders I am not satisfied that any sentence short of imprisonment would achieve the purposes of sentencing as set out in the Sentencing Act 2002. I repeat again this was your ninth and tenth breach of protection orders within two years.

Submissions

For the appellant

[10] The appellant no longer contends that the prison term imposed is manifestly excessive but Ms Aickin…

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 [2016] NZHC 850
Case: [2016] NZHC 850
Decision Date: 2 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Bartlett v Police, the appellant, Nathan John Bartlett, appealed against his sentence of 11 months imprisonment, contending that home detention should have been imposed instead. The appellant had pleaded guilty to two charges of breaching a protection order and one charge of breaching prison release conditions. He had been sentenced by Judge Couch in the Christchurch District Court. The appellant had previously breached a protection order on several occasions and had been sentenced to imprisonment for those breaches. He was released from prison on 21 September 2015 and reoffended within days, resulting in the charges for which he was sentenced. The appellant submitted that the Judge erred in refusing to grant home detention and in not allowing further enquiry as to a suitable address for that purpose. The respondent submitted that the appellant's repeated breaches of protection orders and release conditions, and his complete disregard for court orders, demonstrated that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing. The High Court found that the Judge had not erred in exercising his sentencing discretion, and dismissed the appeal. The Judge had appropriately considered the appellant's complete disregard for protection orders and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The sentence of imprisonment was the least restrictive sentence that could be imposed and was necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing.

Orders