Legal Research
Cases
Carrick v Police

Carrick v Police

Case [2017] NZHC 1188 1 June 2017

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2017-404-062

[2017] NZHC 1188

BETWEEN
STEPHEN JOHN CARRICK

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 16 May 2017

Appearances:

N Soondram for Appellant J Bull for Respondent

Judgment:

1 June 2017

JUDGMENT (No 2) OF PAUL DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 June 2017 at 4.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland

CARRICK v NEW ZEALAND POLICE JUDGMENT No 2 [2017] NZHC 1188 [1 June 2017]

Summary

[1] Mr Steven Carrick appeals the sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment imposed on him by Judge Collins in the Auckland District Court on 24 February 2017. His appeal focuses on the disproportionality of the sentence and the uplift imposed for his previous convictions.

[2] In the circumstances here, even though I consider it would have been more appropriate for the Judge to have adopted a cumulative approach rather than a concurrent approach en route to determining the final sentence, Judge Collins’ sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment nevertheless reflects Mr Carrick’s total criminality. The end sentence is not manifestly excessive and should not be interfered with on appeal.

[3]This judgment replaces my earlier judgment of 23 May 2017.

The offending

[4] The offending in respect of which Mr Carrick was sentenced occurred on three distinct occasions.

[5] He was released from Mount Eden Correctional Facility on 10 November 2016. He was subject to release conditions including the standard condition requiring him to report to a Probation Officer as and when directed to do so. In breach of written instructions regarding his reporting obligations, which he had signed, Mr Carrick failed to report on 29 December 2016. By 17 January Mr Carrick had still not contacted his Probation Officer and his whereabouts were unknown. The charge of failing to report to a probation officer on 29 December 2016 as directed was laid.

[6] The second sequence of offending occurred at about 10.00 pm on 10 January 2017. Mr Carrick was travelling on a bus from Glendene to Te Atatu. He sat behind the victim and intentionally sprayed deodorant towards the victim and then, using a lighter, he ignited the deodorant spray, setting fire to the victim’s shirt. The flames from the ignited deodorant can were then waved about and seen by other passengers causing them to fear for their safety and to shout at the bus driver to stop so they could

get off. The bus was stopped and evacuated while the flame was extinguished. Mr Carrick first appeared in Court in relation to this offending on 16 January 2017 charged with assault. He was remanded to 2 February 2017 and released on bail.

[7] The third sequence of offending occurred at about 6.00 pm on 1 February 2017. Mr Carrick was intoxicated, contrary to bail conditions prohibiting him from consuming alcohol. He approached a car stopped at a red light and said to the male driver, “You look like a pig…

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 Carrick v Police

Details

AGLC: Carrick v Police [2017] NZHC 1188
Case: [2017] NZHC 1188
Decision Date: 1 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Stephen John Carrick appeals the sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment imposed on him by Judge Collins in the Auckland District Court. Carrick’s appeal focuses on the disproportionality of the sentence and the uplift imposed for his previous convictions. The court examines the legal issues surrounding the disproportionality of the sentence and the uplift for previous convictions, considering the principles of deterrence, community protection, and rehabilitation.

The court finds that while the sentence was not manifestly excessive, the methodology adopted by the sentencing judge could have been improved. The court notes that the uplift for previous convictions was appropriate, as Carrick’s extensive history of relevant offending warranted an uplift in the interests of public protection and deterrence. However, the court suggests that the uplift should have been more specifically related to the offending at issue, rather than applying a global uplift based on Carrick’s criminal history.

As for the concurrent sentencing approach, the court concludes that a cumulative approach would have been preferable, given the distinct nature of Carrick’s multiple instances of offending. Nevertheless, the court finds that the end sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment is within the available range and not manifestly excessive, as it accurately reflects the overall criminality of Carrick’s offending. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

In summary, the court found that the sentence imposed on Carrick was not manifestly excessive, but the methodology used by the sentencing judge could have been improved. The uplift for previous convictions was deemed appropriate, and while a cumulative sentencing approach would have been preferable, the end sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment was within the available range and reflective of Carrick’s overall criminality.

Orders