C v New Zealand Police HC Wanganui CRI 2009-483-13

[2010] NZHC 1003

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WANGANUI REGISTRY

CRI 2009-483-13

BETWEEN  C

Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         31 March 2010

Counsel:         D Goodlet for Appellant

J M Woodcock for Respondent

Judgment:      31 March 2010

JUDGMENT OF MILLER J

[1]      Ms  C    appeals  against  a  sentence  of  ten  months  home  detention imposed on four charges of receiving (under $500), one of receiving (over $1,000), an one of possessing cannabis (28 grams).

[2]      The facts are that she was found in possession of items stolen in a number of burglaries.  The property that she admitted to receiving has a value of approximately

$3,650.

[3]      She was apprehended on 6 May 2009 and pleaded guilty on 16 November, following a sentencing indication on 5 October.  The Judge indicated that given her guilty plea and the fact that she had committed no offences for a decade, the end point would be no more restrictive than six months home detention and the Court

remained open to lesser sentences.

C V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WANG CRI 2009-483-13  31 March 2010

[4]      A different Judge sentenced Ms C   on 16 November.  He noted that she had a number of previous convictions but none since 1999.   She had had a difficult time in her personal life since her mother’s death in 2007 and was unable to work.     The  probation  report  described  her  as  motivated  and  at  low  risk  of reoffending.  However, denunciation was required.  He imposed the sentence of ten months home detention.

[5]      It is common ground between the appellant and the police that the appeal must be allowed and a sentence of six months home detention substituted, for several reasons.   First, the sentence was inconsistent with the sentencing indication but Ms C   was not  given an opportunity to  reconsider her plea.   Second, no starting point was expressed.   Third, the sentence imposed on all of the offences seems to have been the same but some of them, those involving receiving less than

$500 and the possession of cannabis, carried a maximum sentence of three months imprisonment.  I add that given the items appear to have related to one transaction, and given her personal circumstances and the positive pre-sentence report, a sentence of 10 months home detention is a stern one.

[6]      In this case, the appeal will be allowed.  The sentence of six months home detention is realistic, in my opinion.  That sentence will be substituted on the charge of receiving over $1,000.  There will be concurrent sentences of one month’s home detention on the remaining charges.

Miller J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor’s Office, Wanganui for Respondent