Chapman v Police - [2020] NZHC 2108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2020-409-000080

[2020] NZHC 2108

BETWEEN
VINNIE LEE CHAPMAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

Hearing: 20 August 2020

Appearances:

R Ward for the Appellant

K Courteney for the Respondent

Judgment:

20 August 2020

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors: Raymond Donnelly & Co (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Christchurch Counsel: R Ward, Barrister, Christchurch

CHAPMAN v NZ POLICE and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 2108 [20 August 2020]

[1] On 27 May 2020, Vinnie Lee Chapman was sentenced to two years and four months’ imprisonment on a variety of charges. He was also re-sentenced on other charges to a cumulative four months’ imprisonment, making the total sentence one of two years and eight months’ imprisonment. He now appeals against the sentence as being manifestly excessive.

Factual background

[2] On 15 May 2018, Mr Chapman was sentenced to 90 hours’ community work for operating a motor vehicle with sustained loss of traction. His reporting on community work was poor and he eventually disengaged with the Department of Corrections. At the time of his disengagement, 62 hours were owing.

[3] On 12 September 2019, Mr Chapman was sentenced to three months’ community detention and 12 months’ intensive supervision on three charges of failing to answer court bail, two charges of wilful damage, one charge of driving while disqualified and one charge of possession of an offensive weapon. The wilful damage charges related to breaking two windows in a car belonging to his partner and, on another occasion, breaking a window of his partner’s flat and using a knife to cut his partner’s bed base after flipping it up against a wall. The charge of possession of an offensive weapon related to a tomahawk found under the driver’s seat of a car in which Mr Chapman was a passenger in the right rear seat, immediately behind the driver’s seat.

[4] The community detention to which Mr Chapman was sentenced required him to be present at his curfew address from 8.00 pm until 6.00 am. He returned late on two occasions and then did not return at all from 20 October 2019. Mr Chapman was also required to report weekly to the Department of Corrections in terms of his intensive supervision sentence. Although he initially began the sentence well, he failed to report on 23 October 2019 or thereafter.

[5] On 6 December 2019, Mr Chapman obtained 25 Diesel watches and two watch boxes by deception. The victim was selling Diesel watches on Facebook Marketplace. Mr Chapman contacted him via Messenger. They agreed on a price of $5,500 for the sale and purchase of 25 Diesel watches and two watch boxes. It was agreed that

Mr Chapman would make an internet bank transfer of $5,500 at the time of inspection and collection of the Diesel watches and watch boxes. Mr Chapman met the victim’s girlfriend in a car park that day. After receiving the…

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 [2020] NZHC 2108
Case: [2020] NZHC 2108
Decision Date: 20 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against sentence was brought by Vinnie Lee Chapman against the sentence imposed on him by the Christchurch District Court. Chapman argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The High Court allowed the appeal and substituted the sentence of imprisonment with a sentence of home detention. The legal issues before the court were whether the starting point adopted by the Judge for the charge of obtaining by deception was too high, whether the Judge failed to adequately apply the totality principle, and whether the Judge placed inadequate weight on Chapman’s personal circumstances. The court found that the starting point for the offence of obtaining by deception was not appropriate and that the uplifts applied to the starting point for the offence of strangulation were excessive. The court also found that Chapman’s personal circumstances were relevant in determining the appropriate sentence. The court substituted the sentence of imprisonment with a sentence of home detention on the basis that Chapman had been in custody for almost six months awaiting sentence and the appeal hearing, and that a sentence of home detention would provide him with the stability and rehabilitation he needed. The court imposed special conditions on the sentence of home detention, including that Chapman was not to possess, consume or use any alcohol or drugs not prescribed, and that he was to attend and complete an appropriate alcohol and drug abuse programme to the satisfaction of a probation officer.

Orders