Britton v Police - [2014] NZHC 1256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2014-441-010 [2014] NZHC 1256

IN THE MATTER OF
Section 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act

2011

BETWEEN

JADE EMMA BRITTON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 4 June 2014

Counsel:

P Ross for Appellant
C R Walker for Respondent

Judgment:

5 June 2014

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 June 2014 3:30 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Cathedral Lane Law, Napier
Elvidge & Partners, Crown Solicitor, Napier

BRITTON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 1256 [5 June 2014]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Jade Britton, pleaded guilty in the District Court at Napier to a charge of giving a false alarm of fire, an offence under the Fire Service Act 1975.1
The maximum penalty for the offence is three months’ imprisonment or a fine of up

to $500.2

[2] Ms Britton pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced by Judge

A J Adeane to 80 hours’ community work. She was also ordered to pay reparation of

$372.42. She now appeals that sentence. In particular, Ms Britton says that she should not have been ordered to undertake community work, in addition to paying reparation.

[3] The essential issue raised by this appeal is whether the imposition of 80 hours community work, combined with reparation, was a manifestly excessive sentence in all the circumstances of this case. Determination of that issue requires me to consider:

(a) whether the Judge erred in his assessment of Ms Britton’s culpability, particularly given that she was a party to the offence rather than the principal offender;

(b) whether the Judge was required to take into account a “plea bargain”

arrangement between the police and Ms Britton;

(c) whether the Judge provided an appropriate guilty plea discount; and

(d) whether the Judge gave appropriate weight to factors such as

Ms Britton’s age and her willingness to pay the costs of the call-out.

[4] I will address each issue in turn, after briefly outlining the legal principles relevant to determination of this appeal.

Approach to sentence appeals under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011

[5] An appeal against sentence is an appeal against the exercise of a discretion. Under s 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, the Court must allow the appeal if it is satisfied that there was an error in the sentence imposed and that a different sentence should replace it. If so, the Court may set aside the sentence and impose another, vary the sentence, or remit the sentence to the Court that imposed it.

[6] The Criminal Procedure Act essentially confirms the approach taken in the now-repealed Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The approach to be taken to appeals under s 121(3) of that Act was set out in Yorston v Police, where the Court said:3

(a) There must be an error vitiating the lower court’s original sentencing discretion: the appeal must proceed on an “error principle”.

(b)To establish an error in…

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 Britton v Police

Details

AGLC: Britton v Police [2014] NZHC 1256
Case: [2014] NZHC 1256
Decision Date: 5 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Jade Emma Britton against the sentence imposed by the District Court at Napier. Ms Britton had pleaded guilty to giving a false alarm of fire, an offence under the Fire Service Act 1975. She was sentenced to 80 hours of community work and ordered to pay reparation of $372.42. Ms Britton appealed the sentence, contending that she should not have been ordered to undertake community work in addition to paying reparation. The High Court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The key issues for the court were whether the judge erred in his assessment of Ms Britton's culpability, whether a "plea bargain" arrangement between the police and Ms Britton should have been taken into account, whether the judge provided an appropriate guilty plea discount, and whether the judge gave appropriate weight to factors such as Ms Britton's age and willingness to pay the costs of the call-out.

The court held that there was no error in the judge's assessment of Ms Britton's culpability, as she had accepted her role as a party to the offence. The court further held that the judge was not required to take into account the "plea bargain" between the police and Ms Britton, as the cooperation encouraged by the Criminal Procedure Act does not extend to sentencing outcomes. The court found that the judge gave an appropriate discount for the guilty plea, and that the personal factors relating to Ms Britton did not render the sentence inappropriate or manifestly excessive. Ultimately, the court held that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal brought by Jade Emma Britton against the sentence imposed by the District Court at Napier was dismissed.

Orders