Bulmer v Police - [2016] NZHC 2973

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-485-90 [2016] NZHC 2973

BETWEEN
JADE BULMER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 6 December 2016

Counsel:

K Preston and L Caris for Appellant
R H De Silva for Respondent

Judgment:

9 December 2016

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

Introduction

[1] Jade Bulmer appeals a sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment imposed on him in the District Court in respect of seven charges of shoplifting and one charge each of receiving, wilful trespass, unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, failing to answer District Court bail and breach of conditions of supervision.

[2] Mr Bulmer says that sentence was manifestly excessive and, moreover, that the Judge was wrong not to commute it to home detention.

Factual background

[3] Mr Bulmer’s dishonesty-related offending occurred on various dates between

15 April 2016 and 11 August 2016. On four occasions Mr Bulmer stole (shoplifted) meat valued less than $500, and on one occasion stole meat worth $511, from various supermarkets in the Hutt area. He stole a laptop worth $1200, and perfume
worth $700, on separate dates from local retail outlets. On another day he was found

BULMER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2973 [9 December 2016]

in possession of a hair straightener an associate had shoplifted. He was trespassed from the mall where that shoplifting had occurred. He returned some three weeks later and was charged with trespass. Finally, on one occasion he was found driving a car which had been stolen earlier that day.

[4] Mr Bulmer failed to answer District Court bail on 25 August, a date that had been set for a case review hearing.

[5] Mr Bulmer also failed to report to his probation officer as required by a sentence of supervision he was serving during this period for a previous offence.

[6] The first charge Mr Bulmer faced was laid on 21 May 2016, for shoplifting that had occurred the day before. On that occasion, Mr Bulmer had been seen by the supermarket security staff driving away. The staff pointed the vehicle out to the police. The police stopped the vehicle and arrested Mr Bulmer. Mr Bulmer was charged subsequently on various dates for offending that pre-dated 20 May and for further shoplifting offending that occurred after that day.

[7] Mr Bulmer was remanded in custody on 1 September 2016, when he appeared on the charge of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle.

Sentence

[8] In sentencing Mr Bulmer, Judge Butler fixed a starting point, on the lead charge of stealing the laptop, of 12 months’ imprisonment for all Mr Bulmer’s offending. He reduced that by two months on account of Mr Bulmer’s guilty pleas. The Judge imposed lesser, concurrent, sentences for the other offences. The Judge declined to impose a sentence of home detention. He recorded his reasons for that decision as follows:

[14] I have to consider the issue of whether I would commute that sentence to one of home detention. I decline to do so.

[15]…

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 Bulmer v Police

Details

AGLC: Bulmer v Police [2016] NZHC 2973
Case: [2016] NZHC 2973
Decision Date: 9 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Jade Bulmer, appealed against a sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment imposed on him by the District Court. The sentence was imposed in respect of multiple charges, including shoplifting, receiving stolen goods, wilful trespass, unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, failing to answer District Court bail and breach of conditions of supervision. Bulmer argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the District Court Judge was wrong not to commute the sentence to home detention. The appeal was heard by the High Court, with the appellant represented by K Preston and L Caris and the respondent represented by R H De Silva. The court was required to determine whether the starting point of the sentence was appropriately determined, and whether the sentence should have been commuted to one of home detention. The court found that the starting point of the sentence was too high and that the Judge should have imposed a starting point of six months’ imprisonment on the lead charge, with a two month uplift to take account of the remaining charges. The court also found that the Judge was wrong when declining home detention, and that the appropriate outcome was a sentence of home detention. The court substituted the sentence of imprisonment with a sentence of six months’ imprisonment, and imposed release conditions.

Orders