Bates v The Queen

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA306/2016
[2016] NZCA 485

BETWEEN	THOMAS WESLEY BATES Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	5 September 2016
Court:	Miller, Courtney and Woodhouse JJ
Counsel:	A M Dooney for Appellant A J Ewing for Respondent
Judgment:	6 October 2016 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment is quashed.
BA sentence of home detention for four months is substituted, with that sentence subject to the conditions recorded in this judgment.

____________________________________________________________________

FURTHER REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Woodhouse J)

For the reasons recorded in the judgment of 23 September 2016[1] we held that, subject to provision of a suitable home detention residence report, the appeal against sentence would be allowed, the sentence of imprisonment quashed, and a sentence of four months’ home detention substituted.
[1]Bates v R [2016] NZCA 456.
A home detention report, dated 4 October 2016, has been received from the Department of Corrections. In light of that report the proposed home detention sentence may be confirmed.
The sentence of home detention is subject to the following conditions in addition to the standard conditions prescribed by s 80C of the Sentencing Act 2002:
(a)The home detention residence is 44 Arcus Street, Raumanga, Whangarei.
(b)The appellant is to travel directly to 44 Arcus Street, Raumanga, Whangarei immediately following his release from prison and await the arrival of the electronic monitoring company representative.
(c)The appellant is not to purchase, possess or consume alcohol.
(d)The appellant is to attend a full assessment and undertake such counselling and treatment for drug dependency as directed by the probation officer to the satisfaction of the programme provider and the probation officer.
(e)The appellant is to attend an assessment for a departmental programme and, if found suitable, complete such departmental programmes and maintenance sessions as directed by the probation officer.
(f)The appellant is to undertake any other such programmes/counselling to address his offending needs as deemed appropriate by the probation officer.
The sentence is also subject to post-detention conditions for four months, as follows:
(a)To undertake assessments for drug use as directed by a probation officer.
(b)If found suitable, to undertake and complete counselling/programme or treatment for drug use as directed by a probation officer and to the satisfaction of the counsellor/programme/treatment provider.
(c)To attend assessments for a departmental programme and, if found suitable, to complete a departmental programme and maintenance sessions to the satisfaction of the programme facilitators.
(d)To undertake and complete any such counselling as directed by a probation officer.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

Thomas Wesley Bates, the appellant, brought an appeal against his sentence before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, challenging the prison sentence imposed on him by a lower court. The appeal was heard on 5 September 2016 by Miller, Courtney, and Woodhouse JJ. The central issue before the court was whether the original sentence of imprisonment was appropriate, or if an alternative sentence, specifically home detention, would be more suitable given the circumstances of the case.

The court examined the legal framework for sentencing and the principles that guide the substitution of one form of punishment for another. The appeal hinged on whether the proposed sentence of home detention, subject to certain conditions, would be a more appropriate and rehabilitative form of punishment than the original imprisonment sentence. The court had to consider the appellant's background, the nature of the offence, and the potential for rehabilitation under a home detention regime.

In its judgment delivered on 6 October 2016, the Court of Appeal found that the appeal against the sentence should be allowed. The court quashed the original sentence of imprisonment and substituted a sentence of four months' home detention, subject to specific conditions aimed at ensuring the appellant's rehabilitation and compliance with the terms of his detention. These conditions included restrictions on alcohol consumption, mandatory drug dependency treatment, and participation in specific departmental programmes. The sentence was further subject to post-detention conditions to ensure continued compliance and support for the appellant's rehabilitation efforts.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established