Chambers v The Queen - [2015] NZHC 1590

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2015-425-6&7 [2015] NZHC 1590

BETWEEN
RAMERA CHAMBERS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 29 June 2015

Appearances:

K McHugh for the Appellant
M Wong for the Crown

Judgment:

8 July 2015

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Background

[1] Mr Chambers appeals against sentences imposed on 25 February 2015 on charges of injuring with intent and burglary.1 That offending had occurred on 26
September 2013. He was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and two months. He was also ordered to pay reparation of $100 and emotional harm reparation of
$500 at the rate of $20 per week.

[2] Mr Chambers also appeals against sentences imposed for offending that occurred on 7 September 2014 in Invercargill. In relation to that incident, on an escaping from custody charge, he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for four months. On two charges of assaulting Police, he was sentenced to imprisonment for one month. On a charge of assault, he was sentenced to imprisonment for one month. On two intentional damage charges, he was sentenced
to imprisonment for one month. In relation to one of the intentional damage charges,

1 R v Chambers [2015] NZDC 2805.

CHAMBERS v R [2015] NZHC 1590 [8 July 2015]

he was ordered to pay $794 reparation immediately. On the other intentional damage charge, he was ordered to pay reparation of $264 immediately. Those sentences were all concurrent.

[3] In respect of outstanding fines of $4,543.11, a substituted sentence of two weeks’ imprisonment was imposed, cumulative on the other sentences. He has appealed that sentence.

[4] On 25 February 2014 a co-offender, Wiremu Devlin, was sentenced at the same time as Mr Chambers in respect of the lead offences. Mr Devlin was sentenced to home detention for a period of 10 months, 100 hours’ community work and ordered to pay reparation of $580. Another co-offender, Mr Karetai, who was said by Mr Chambers and Mr Devlin to be the main offender in this incident, was earlier sentenced to 11 months’ home detention.

[5] The appeal was advanced on the basis:

(a) the end sentence was manifestly excessive and should have been a sentence of less than two years’ imprisonment;

(b) there was too great a disparity with the sentence imposed on a co- offender in respect of the lead offence of injuring with intent to injure; and

(c) there was an error in the substitution of imprisonment for non-payment of fines.

The threshold for an appeal against sentence

[6] Section 250(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 states that the Court must allow the appeal if satisfied that:

(a) for any reason, there is an error in the sentence imposed on conviction;
and

(b) a different sentence should be imposed.

In any other case, the Court must dismiss the appeal.2

[7] This appeal should be allowed only if I am satisfied the ultimate sentence

imposed was “manifestly excessive”.3

The 2013 offending

[8] The lead offences were the injuring with intent and…

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 Chambers v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Chambers v The Queen [2015] NZHC 1590
Case: [2015] NZHC 1590
Decision Date: 8 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Chambers v The Queen was against sentences imposed on Mr Chambers for various charges, including injuring with intent, burglary, escaping from custody, and assaulting police. The sentences were deemed manifestly excessive and disproportionate to those of co-offenders. The appeal argued that the sentencing judge made errors in considering aggravating factors and in applying credit for Mr Chambers’ guilty plea and willingness to pay reparation. The Court found that the original sentence was indeed excessive and disproportionate, mainly due to errors in the sentencing process and inadequate consideration of mitigating factors.

The Court found that the sentencing judge incorrectly considered certain actions of Mr Chambers as aggravating factors, which led to a higher starting point for his sentence. Additionally, the judge failed to adequately credit Mr Chambers for his guilty plea and willingness to pay reparation. The Court determined that an appropriate sentence for Mr Chambers would have been 21 months for the 2013 offending and 27 months for the 2014 offending, taking into account mitigating factors. The total sentence should have been around 21 months, considering the credit for his guilty pleas. However, the sentences imposed were two years and two months, which the Court found to be manifestly excessive.

The Court also found that the sentence imposed for non-payment of fines was inappropriate, as the judge did not have sufficient information to determine whether Mr Chambers had the financial capacity to pay the fines. The Court allowed the appeal against this sentence, reinstated the fines, and remitted the matter back to the District Court for reconsideration.

The Court allowed the appeal and re-sentenced Mr Chambers. For the injuring with intent and burglary charges, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 17 months and ordered to pay reparation and emotional harm payment. For the other charges, he was sentenced to imprisonment for various periods, with all sentences to run concurrently. The Court also imposed special release conditions for Mr Chambers and directed the Registrar to arrange a conference with counsel to discuss the reinstated fines and any further appeal.

Orders