Chambers-Mickie v Police - [2023] NZHC 2486

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2023-485-80

[2023] NZHC 2486

BETWEEN
RICKY CHAMBERS-MICKIE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 18 December 2023

Appearances:

C J Nicholls for Appellant M K Story for Respondent

Judgment:

18 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

(Sentence appeal)

[1] Mr Ricky Chambers-Mickie (the appellant) was sentenced on 1 December 2023 by Judge Mika in the Hutt Valley District Court to 10 months and two weeks’ home detention on the following charges to which he pleaded guilty:1

(a)one charge of possession of an offensive weapon;2

(b)one charge of possession of a knife;3

(c)11 charges of theft (under $500);4 and

1      Police v Chambers-Mickie [2023] NZDC 27855.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(a); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
3      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 13A; maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
4      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.

CHAMBERS-MICKIE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2486 [18 December 2023]

(d)one charge of theft (over $1,000).5

[2] Mr Chambers-Mickie appeals his sentence, saying that the starting point adopted by the District Court Judge was too high, thereby making the end sentence manifestly excessive.

Background

[3] Between 26 March and 23 April Mr Chambers-Mickie engaged in a series of shoplifting style offences. This included eight occasions where he put petrol in his car or a jerry can without paying with the amounts involved between $5.67 and $89.99. There were then three further thefts of grocery items from Pak n Save Petone, and one theft from The Warehouse in Petone involving goods valued between $120 and $350. Further, on 10 April 2023, Mr Chambers-Mickie went to Briscoes Petone, uplifted an “Alpaca Duvet Inner and a Karcher Window Vac”, collectively valued at $1,034.98. Mr Chambers-Mickie left the store without paying, giving rise to the charge of theft (over $1000).

[4] On 25 April 2023, the Police stopped Mr Chambers-Mickie in relation to an unrelated matter on Molesworth Street, Wellington. The Police arrested Mr Chambers-Mickie. At that time, the Police found a green kitchen knife, a metal carabiner containing a fold out blade, and a homemade bayonet. This gave rise to the charges of possession of an offensive weapon, and possession of a knife.

[5] Mr Chambers-Mickie has a significant criminal history, involving a large number of previous convictions for dishonesty offending, many of which have been committed while Mr Chambers-Mickie was on bail. His history includes more serious property offences such as burglary, as well as family violence offending, drug offending, and driving offending. Specifically, Mr Chambers-Mickie has a total of 127 convictions since 2000, 88 of which are for or relate to dishonesty offending.

[6] When interviewed for the pre-sentence report Mr Chambers-Mickie accepted the summary of facts, and said that he was stealing food and petrol because he was

5 Sections 219 and 223(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

short of money and had no accommodation. He…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chambers-Mickie 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: [2023] NZHC 2486
Decision Date: 18 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant Ricky Chambers-Mickie appealed his sentence imposed by the Hutt Valley District Court, which included home detention for various charges of theft and possession of offensive weapons. The central issue for the High Court was whether the starting point for the appellant's sentence was appropriately set, and if not, whether the resulting sentence was manifestly excessive. The High Court assessed the appellant's criminal history, the nature and value of the stolen items, and his personal circumstances, including his homelessness at the time of the offences.

The Court determined that the starting point of two years' imprisonment was too high, especially considering the maximum penalty for the most serious offence was three years. The Court found that a starting point of 14 months' imprisonment was more appropriate, considering the value of the stolen items and the appellant's extensive criminal history. The Court also applied discounts for the guilty plea and personal circumstances, resulting in a sentence of nine months' imprisonment, which was converted to four months and two weeks' home detention, increased to five months and two weeks' due to the remission of fines.

The High Court concluded that the original sentence was manifestly excessive and substituted a sentence of five months and two weeks' home detention, aligning with the appropriate starting point and discount factors. The appeal was allowed, and the revised sentence was imposed.

Orders