Beck v Police - [2014] NZHC 931

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI 2014-425-005 [2014] NZHC 931

BETWEEN
MARRAH PATU BECK

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE AND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondents

Hearing: 6 May 2014

Appearances:

K A Owen for Appellant
S N McKenzie for Respondents

Judgment:

6 May 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to two charges of breaching a protection order and one charge of breaching release conditions. He was sentenced by Judge Turner to 15 months imprisonment. He appeals that sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive.

Background

[2] The appellant and his victim shared a sporadic relationship for some 10 years. That relationship however ended years ago. It was marked by a history of domestic violence dating back to 2005. On 20 November 2006, a final protection order was issued against the appellant in favour of the victim.

[3] On 1 January 2014, in breach of this protection order the appellant sent 45 text messages to the victim. In one of these messages he stated, “I’m going to put you in a coffin”. Having replied to the appellant on four occasions to tell him that she did not want to be in a relationship with him, the victim stopped replying and
phoned the Police.

BECK v NEW ZEALAND POLICE & ANOR [2014] NZHC 931 [6 May 2014]

[4] The second breach of the protection order arose out of events on the following morning, 2 January. The victim was at her home address when she received a text message from the appellant stating, “I’ll see you soon”. Over the next two hours the appellant received numerous text messages and missed calls from the appellant, none of which were replied to. In the afternoon, the victim heard a knock at her door. She then witnessed the appellant walk past a window to the back door. She then heard a set of keys being tried unsuccessfully in her front door in what was an obvious attempt by the appellant to enter the address. After the appellant left, the victim called the Police. As the Police attended at the victim’s address, they observed the appellant’s vehicle pull up outside. Notwithstanding the presence of the Police, the appellant continued to attempt to contact the victim, calling her cell phone and landline approximately 10 times.

[5] The appellant provided no explanation to the Police in relation to his actions, other than “I’ll plead guilty and do my time”.

The appellant’s previous history

[6] As detailed by Judge Turner in his sentencing remarks, the appellant has a history of domestic violence including assaults and threats to this particular victim. His history starts in 1996, when he was convicted of male assaults female and sentenced to supervision. In 1998, the appellant was convicted of a domestic violence assault and received periodic detention. In 1999, he received a sentence of supervision for male assaults female, there then followed a gap until 2006, when he was convicted of intimidation and male assaults…

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 Beck v Police

Details

AGLC: Beck v Police [2014] NZHC 931
Case: [2014] NZHC 931
Decision Date: 6 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the appellant, Marrah Patu Beck, sought to appeal a sentence imposed by the District Court for breaches of a protection order and release conditions. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence of 15 months imprisonment, which was imposed by Judge Turner, was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive due to what he perceived as double counting of the breaches of the protection order on successive days and the effect of his prior criminal history on the sentence.

The court examined the appellant's history of domestic violence against the victim, which dated back to 2005, and noted the appellant's repeated breaches of a protection order issued in 2006. The court further considered the events of 1 and 2 January 2014, when the appellant sent numerous threatening text messages to the victim and attempted to gain entry to her home. The appellant's lack of remorse and his statement to the police that he would "plead guilty and do my time" underscored the gravity of his actions.

The court acknowledged that while the appellant's argument regarding double counting had some merit, the sentencing judge was entitled to recognise the escalation of the appellant's conduct in the ultimate sentence. The court also found that the uplift for the appellant's prior history, which included multiple convictions for domestic violence and breaches of protection orders, was justified on grounds of deterrence and protection of the victim. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the range available to the sentencing judge and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of 15 months imprisonment imposed by the District Court was upheld. The appellant was to serve the full term of imprisonment as determined by the District Court, less the discount for early pleas.

Orders