Carpenter v Police - [2021] NZHC 3545

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2021-441-27

[2021] NZHC 3545

BETWEEN
GRANT BRENDON CARPENTER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

CRI-2021-441-28

BETWEEN

CATHERINE ELIZABETH TEMPLE
Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 15 December 2021

Appearances:

A McPherson for Appellant

J D Bridgman for Respondent

Judgment:

17 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Sentence appeal]

Introduction

[1] Ms Temple and Mr Carpenter are partners in, and out, of crime. They appeal sentences imposed by Judge Collins on 31 August 2021.1

[2]Mr Carpenter was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment on six charges:

1 New Zealand Police v Carpenter [2021] NZDC 17439; New Zealand Police v Temple [2021] NZDC 17429.

CARPENTER and TEMPLE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 3545 [17 December 2021]

(a)the lead charge of receiving a Toyota Hilux valued at $15,000;

(b)two charges of failing to answer bail;

(c)a second charge of receiving items worth less than $500;

(d)possession of methamphetamine; and

(e)a further charge of possession of codeine.

[3]Ms Temple was sentenced to six months’ home detention on five charges:

(a)a charge of receiving the Toyota Hilux, on which Mr Carpenter was a co-defendant;

(b)possession of methamphetamine

(c)failing to answer bail;

(d)a further charge of receiving;

(e)theft.

[4] Ms Temple received home detention while Mr Carpenter was imprisoned because at the time Mr Carpenter did not have a suitable address. He was granted leave to apply for home detention, however, and was resentenced on 10 November 2021 to two months’ home detention. That sentence took into account the time he had spent in custody since 31 August.

[5]The grounds of appeal advanced by both appellants are broadly the same:

(a)while the starting point for the lead offence was within range, the additional uplift for the balance offending was too high, and the end point sentence manifestly excessive; and

(b)a sentence of intensive supervision and community detention, as recommended by Corrections, were the least restrictive outcome called for in the circumstances.

The offending

[6] On 27 January 2021, Ms Temple stole five items from the Waipukurau hospice shop. The total value was $60. Later that day, both appellants were located in a vehicle. Mr Carpenter was in possession of a “large number” of codeine pills not prescribed to him. Both appellants were in possession of 0.16 grams of methamphetamine, and various licenses and credit cards stolen from eight victims between 31 March 2019 and 5 January 2021.

[7] The lead charge of receiving related to a Toyota Hilux valued at $15,000. The vehicle was stolen from its owner on 9 May 2021. On 27 June 2021, the appellants were found in possession of the vehicle.

[8] Both appellants were charged jointly and appeared for sentence together on the same day in respect of the two charges of receiving, possession of methamphetamine, and failure to answer bail on 28 April 2021. I adopt the helpful table provided by counsel for the respondent, Mr Bridgman, in submissions which identifies the…

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 Carpenter v Police

Details

AGLC: Carpenter v Police [2021] NZHC 3545
Case: [2021] NZHC 3545
Decision Date: 17 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Grant Brendon Carpenter and Catherine Elizabeth Temple appealed against their respective sentences imposed by Judge Collins. Carpenter was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on various charges, while Temple was sentenced to six months' home detention. Both appellants argued that the uplift for the balance of offending was too high and that a sentence of intensive supervision and community detention was the least restrictive outcome. The court had to decide if the uplift for the balance of offending was too high and if a community-based sentence was appropriate.

The court found that the four-month uplift applied by the Judge to reflect the balance of Carpenter’s convictions was not excessive, as the maximum penalties for the remaining charges totalled 3 years' imprisonment. Similarly, the three-month uplift applied to Temple's sentence was deemed appropriate, given she did not face a second charge of breach of bail. The court also found that a community-based sentence was not realistic, as imprisonment was the appropriate sentence type for the lead charge. However, both appellants were admitted to home detention, mitigating the severity of their sentences.

Carpenter’s appeal was dismissed, and Temple’s appeal was allowed, with her sentence reduced from six months to four and a half months of home detention. The standard and special release conditions imposed by the District Court for six months following the sentence expiry date remained in place.

The final orders of the court were that Mr Carpenter's appeal was dismissed and Ms Temple's appeal was allowed, with her sentence reduced to four and a half months of home detention. The standard and special release conditions imposed by the District Court for six months following the sentence expiry date would remain in place.

Orders