Chapman v Police - [2022] NZHC 2585

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2022-441-18

[2022] NZHC 2585

BETWEEN
SEAN CHAPMAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 5 October 2022

Appearances:

L Grant for Appellant

B McKenzie for Respondent

Judgment:

6 October 2022

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] Mr Chapman was sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment in the Hastings District Court1 following his guilty pleas to a number of dishonesty offences,2 breaching release conditions3 and failing to answer bail.4 He now appeals his sentence on the grounds that the District Court Judge erred by failing to provide a full discount for his early guilty pleas or a discount for his genuine remorse.

1      Police v Chapman [2022] NZDC 13779.
2      Burglary (Crimes Act 1961, s 231; maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment); unlawful taking of a motor vehicle (Crimes Act, s 226(2); maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment); obtaining by deception (over $1000) (Crimes Act, ss 240 and 241(a); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment); obtaining by deception (under $500) (Crimes Act, ss 240 and 241(c); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment); and theft (under $500) (Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(d); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment).
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 96(1); maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment or $2,000 fine.
4      Bail Act 2000, s 24; maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $1,000 fine.

CHAPMAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 2585 [6 October 2022]

Background

[2] The majority of Mr Chapman’s offending is captured by eight obtaining by deception charges. These charges concern the period between July and September 2021 where Mr Chapman used Facebook marketplace to scam other users. Using fake online personas, he would contact people who had placed “wanted to buy” advertisements on the site and tell them he had the items that they were looking for. Following full or partial payment for the items, he would block or stop replying to the purchasers. On two occasions, Mr Chapman advertised the sale of items himself, which he then failed to provide to the purchaser. He obtained $19,822.40 through this scheme.

[3] Mr Chapman also pleaded guilty to charges of burglary and the attempted unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, both relating to incidents where Mr Chapman sought to steal two boats between 15 October 2021 and 21 October 2021.

[4]The attempt charge relates to two attempts to steal the same boat, valued at

$27,000, from the owner’s driveway. Mr Chapman and an associate arrived at the address where the boat was parked and, after ascertaining that the victim was not home, Mr Chapman attempted to hook the boat trailer to his vehicle. This was not possible, due to a lock on the trailer, and they drove away. The next day, Mr Chapman and his associate returned to the address, this time with a battery saw, to cut the lock. A witness passing by confronted the pair and prevented them from taking the boat. Both attempts were captured by CCTV footage.

[5] Sometime…

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 Chapman v Police

Details

AGLC: Chapman v Police [2022] NZHC 2585
Case: [2022] NZHC 2585
Decision Date: 6 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Sean Chapman appealed against his two years and six months’ imprisonment sentence imposed by the Hastings District Court. Chapman pleaded guilty to multiple charges of dishonesty, breaching release conditions and failing to answer bail. Chapman argued that the District Court Judge erred in not providing a full discount for his early guilty pleas or a discount for his genuine remorse. The appeal was brought under sections 244 and 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and if an error in sentencing was found, the Court had to allow the appeal and impose a different sentence. If no error was found, the appeal had to be dismissed.

The District Court Judge took a starting point of 50 months’ imprisonment for Chapman’s offences. The Judge then considered that Chapman was entitled to a 20 per cent discount for his guilty pleas and a further 20 per cent discount for his personal circumstances. This resulted in the end sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment. The Judge observed that to set the discounts at greater than 40 per cent would be to lose sight of the criminality involved. Chapman argued that he was entitled to a full 25 per cent discount for his guilty pleas, as they were entered at the earliest opportunity following full disclosure and legal advice. Chapman also submitted that a discount of seven per cent for his remorse should have been afforded to him by the Judge. The Police opposed the appeal, stating that the starting point was within range and the discounts afforded to Chapman were generous.

The Court did not accept that the Court erred in declining to provide a full 25 per cent discount for Chapman’s guilty plea. The strength of the prosecution case and other relevant circumstances must also be assessed. The Court accepted the Police’s submission that the prosecution case was very strong, supported by Facebook messages, Chapman’s bank accounts and the existence of CCTV footage. As for remorse, discounts may be available for offenders where there is tangible evidence of genuine remorse. However, where there has been recidivist offending, the Court is entitled to place little weight on expressions of remorse. The Court considered that it was open to the Judge to decline a further discount for remorse, taking into account Chapman’s repeated offending of this nature. The Court also did not accept that the sentence reached by the Judge was manifestly excessive. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders