IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2017-404-392
CRI-2017-404-393 [2017] NZHC 3079
BETWEEN KAHU CASSIDY
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
Hearing: 11 December 2017 Counsel:
A M M Ives for Appellant
D S Houghton for RespondentJudgment:
12 December 2017
JUDGMENT OF BREWER J
This judgment was delivered by me on 12 December 2017 at 11:30 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
CASSIDY v POLICE [2017] NZHC 3079 [12 December 2017]
Solicitors/Counsel:
Annabel Ives (Auckland) for Appellant
Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent
Introduction
[1] Mr Cassidy appeals the sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment handed down against him on 6 September 2017 by Judge J Jelas.1 The submission made on behalf of Mr Cassidy is that this sentence is manifestly excessive when the totality of his offending is appreciated.
[2] Mr Cassidy is a prolific offender. His criminal and traffic history amounts to
11 pages. Mr Cassidy is 31 years old. When he came before Judge Jelas for sentencing, her Honour noted it was relevant that the offending for which he was to be sentenced occurred only weeks into a sentence of 18 months’ supervision imposed on him on 1 February 2017. All of the offending was committed while he was subject to that sentence.
Background
[3] The charges fell into three categories. The first related to the theft of a wallet which contained an eftpos card. Mr Cassidy used the eftpos card 19 times and obtained cash and goods to the total of $6,020. There was no prospect of reparation.
[4] The second involved breaches of protection orders. On 30 July 2017, in breach of the protection order, Mr Cassidy went to the protected person’s address. They began to argue and Mr Cassidy hurled abuse at the victim and continuously called her obscene names. He was asked to leave the address but refused to do so, eventually falling asleep on a couch. When he woke, he again began yelling at the victim and again refused to leave. Some hours later the victim decided to telephone the Police and, while on the phone to the Police, Mr Cassidy grabbed the cellphone from her and broke it in half.
[5] The third category is represented by a single charge of breach of community work. Mr Cassidy had accumulated 290 hours of community work, of which he had
performed 53 hours. The Department of Corrections asked for the outstanding amount of community work to be cancelled, and this was done by Judge Jelas.
Appeal
[6] The Judge structured her sentence in this way:
• Theft of the wallet and use of the eftpos card – 16 months.
• Breaches of protection order – four months.
• Breach of community work – three months.
• Uplift for previous convictions – two months.
• Credit for guilty pleas – five months (20%).
[7] Ms Ives, in careful submissions, submits that Judge Jelas made a number of errors in reaching…
Continue reading Cassidy v Police
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Cassidy v Police [2017] NZHC 3079
- Case
- [2017] NZHC 3079
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the arguments made by Ms Ives on behalf of Mr Cassidy. Ms Ives submitted that Judge Jelas made a number of errors in reaching her overall starting point of 23 months' imprisonment, and the end point of 20 months' imprisonment. However, the court found that a starting point of 14 to 16 months was available to the sentencing Judge. The court also found that an uplift of four months for the breaches of the protection order was within range. The court agreed that an uplift of three months for breach of community work was excessive, but found that the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court dismissed the appeal.
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.