Bate v The Queen - [2018] NZHC 882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHARAKEKE ROHE

CRI-2018-406-2 CRI-2018-406-3

CRI-2018-406-4 [2018] NZHC 882

BETWEEN
CONNOR WILLIAM BATE

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 19 April 2018

Appearances:

R Gould for Appellant

S Revell for Respondent

Judgment:

1 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Appeal against sentence)

Introduction

[1] Mr Bate was sentenced to a total of six months’ and one week imprisonment in the District Court on 19 March 2018.1 He appeared for sentencing on one charge of breaching community work and male assaults female. He was also resentenced on one charge of receiving property (under $500), procuring or possessing a cannabis plant, possessing a needle/syringe for cannabis and two charges of breaching community work.

[2] There was initially some confusion about how many charges for a breach of community work he was being resentenced for. However, this has since been clarified and counsel did not raise any issue on that matter.

1 NZ Police v Bate [2018] NZDC 5220.

BATE v R [2018] NZHC 882 [1 May 2018]

Background

Male assaults female

[3] Mr Bate and the complainant have been in a relationship for two years, but live in different homes.

[4] On 4 December 2017, Mr Bate was at his home in Blenheim. The complainant arrived at his home unannounced and climbed into his bed. Mr Bate asked her to contact his work to call in sick. The complainant questioned him about exactly what she should say, and he punched her in the head repeatedly and kicked her leg. She was huddled in the corner of the bed.

[5] Mr Bate ordered the complainant to leave his home, and threw her clothes and other items out after her. She then sat on the doorstep trying to collect her thoughts and he demanded she leave the property. He then threw her to the ground and dragged her by her clothes and skin across the lawn onto the path near the gate.

[6] Mr Bate went back inside and when the complainant tried to get back into the home to get her mobile, Mr Bate punched her in the head with such force she knocked her head against the wall. The complainant received bruising to her face, back and thigh, as well as persistent pain in her head.

Breach of Community work

[7] Mr Bate was sentenced to 275 hours on 17 July 2017. Mr Bate breached his community work conditions on 16 October 2017. He was then sentenced to 60 more cumulative hours community work on 31 October 2017 for this breach. He was warned on that occasion that it was a ‘final warning’.

[8] On 2 December 2017, Mr Bate failed to report to a probation officer without reasonable excuse. This was a breach of his community work requirements. As at 7 December 2017, he had only completed 36.5 hours of community work, leaving a balance of 298.5 hours outstanding.

[9] Due to this December 2017 breach, Mr…

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 Bate v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bate v The Queen [2018] NZHC 882
Case: [2018] NZHC 882
Decision Date: 1 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Connor William Bate, appealed against his sentence imposed by the District Court in Blenheim. The District Court had sentenced Mr Bate to a total of six months and one week imprisonment for various charges, including breaching community work and male assault on a female. The primary legal issues in this appeal were whether the sentencing judge made any factual or legal errors in imposing the sentence and whether the judge erred in rejecting the recommended sentence of intensive supervision and in not allowing Mr Bate to establish an address suitable for home detention. The Court considered the arguments presented by both parties, including the appellant's history of breaching community work obligations and the suitability of alternative sentences such as home detention and intensive supervision.

The Court found that the sentencing judge did not make any factual errors in relation to Mr Bate's actions and history. The judge was justified in describing Mr Bate's actions as disregarding court sentences, given his history of breaching community work obligations. The Court also found that the judge was not in error in declining to adjourn the sentencing to allow Mr Bate to find a suitable address for home detention. The Court held that the Sentencing Act 2002 did not require the judge to grant an adjournment in this case, as no suitable address was available at the time of sentencing. Furthermore, the Court held that the judge was justified in imposing a sentence of imprisonment rather than intensive supervision, given Mr Bate's history of breaching community-based sentences and his unreliability in following court-ordered sentences.

In conclusion, the Court found that the sentence imposed by the District Court was within the available range and did not constitute a legal or factual error. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders