Butler v Police

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2024-416-21

[2024] NZHC 3994

BETWEEN

LANCE BUTLER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 17 December 2024

Counsel:

A M Simperingham for Appellant D W Walker for Respondent

Judgment:

20 December 2024


JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J


[1]    Mr Lance Butler appeals his sentence of one year and one month’s imprisonment (with concurrent sentences totalling eight months’ imprisonment) in respect of:

(a)one count of theft of an animal (over $1,000);1

(b)one count of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle;2 and

(c)two counts of failure to answer District Court bail.3


1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 221 and 223(b): maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

2      Section 226(1): maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

3      Bail Act 2000, s 38: maximum penalty one year imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.

BUTLER v NZ POLICE [2024] NZHC 3994 [20 December 2024]

The offending

Unlawful taking of the motor vehicle

[2]    On 15 November 2023 at about 9.00 am Mr Butler parked his vehicle across the road from the victim’s address in Ruatōria. Mr Butler approached the workshop part of the address, entered the sleepout area, and picked up the keys to the victim’s vehicle. Mr Butler drove the vehicle away from the address. Mr Butler returned to the address later with an associate, intending to recover his vehicle from outside the address. A friend of the victim  stopped  Mr  Butler  and  his  associate  and  took  Mr Butler’s keys. The vehicle was later recovered from a barn where Mr Butler and his associate had advised it was located.

Theft of the animal

[3]    Mr Butler was charged with  two  co-offenders,  Hira  Wharepapa  and  Phillip Roberts.

[4]    On 21 November 2023 at about 2.00 pm Mr Butler and Mr Wharepapa went to Mr Roberts’ home address. There, Mr Butler and Mr Wharepapa asked him to help them kill a cattle beast using his partner’s rifle (a .243 calibre Ruger M77 bolt action rifle).

[5]    The three offenders and Mr Roberts’ partner travelled to a rural property in Ruatōria. Mr Wharepapa drove the vehicle into a paddock. They located a cattle beast and shot the animal twice. It survived the first two shots, walking off to the side of the paddock, before the offenders shot it again, which was fatal. The Police arrived to find the offenders butchering the animal.

Failure to answer bail

[6]    The two charges for failure to answer District Court bail arose from Mr Butler failing without reasonable excuse to attend the Ruatōria District Court as specified in the notice of bail.

[7]    The first offence occurred on 31 January 2024; Mr Butler having been released on bail on 26 January 2024.  The  second  offence  occurred  on  14 August  2024; Mr Butler having been released on bail on 12 June 2024.

Decision under appeal

[8]    On 17 October 2024 Judge Couch in the Gisborne District Court observed that although the theft and the taking of a motor vehicle…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Butler v Police and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2024] NZHC 3994
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lance Butler appeals his sentence of one year and one month’s imprisonment, with concurrent sentences for theft, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, and failure to answer District Court bail. The primary legal issues the Court was required to decide were whether the starting point adopted by the Judge was too high, if the discount given for personal mitigating factors was adequate, and whether an alternative sentence to imprisonment was appropriate. The starting point adopted by the Judge was considered appropriate, as it was not wholly out of proportion to the gravity of the overall offending. The Court found that there was no sound basis to warrant a further discount for personal mitigating factors, such as rehabilitation efforts and the impact on his children, as there was insufficient evidence to support such a discount. The Court also determined that the Judge correctly identified the offending as serious and that imprisonment, with leave to apply to have the sentence commuted to home detention, was the least restrictive outcome that would achieve the purposes of the Sentencing Act. The only error found was in the amount of reparation ordered, which was corrected on appeal.

The appeal is dismissed in all respects except for the reparation amount, which is corrected to $732. The sentence of one year and one month’s imprisonment, with concurrent sentences for the other charges, is confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.