Chapman v Police - [2015] NZHC 498

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-454-000021 [2015] NZHC 498

BETWEEN
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL CHAPMAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 26 February 2015

Appearances:

F Steedman for appellant
E M Fitzherbert for respondent

Judgment:

17 March 2015

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Christopher Chapman, pleaded guilty to 17 charges of dishonesty (laid by the police) and two of breach (laid by the Department of Corrections). Mr Chapman was subsequently sentenced by Judge Smith in the District Court at Palmerston North to four years, eight months and two weeks’ imprisonment.1

[2] Mr Chapman now appeals that sentence as being manifestly excessive on the ground that the Judge did not apply the totality principle correctly.2

1 Police v Chapman DC Palmerston North CRI-2014-043-002350, 12 November 2014.
2The totality principle is reflected in s 85(2) of the Sentencing Act 2001, which provides: If cumulative sentences of imprisonment are imposed, whether individually or in combination with concurrent sentences, they must not result in a total period of imprisonment wholly out of proportion to the gravity of the overall offending.

CHAPMAN v POLICE [2015] NZHC 498 [17 March 2015]

Facts

[3] The offending to which Mr Chapman pleaded guilty occurred between May and September 2014. It comprised:

(a) Obtaining by deception (May/June 2010): Mr Chapman went to a number of suppliers of merchandise (such as RDI and Repco), and charged goods (such as power tools, farm supplies and milk powder) to accounts of previous employers. As a result he faced eight separate charges of obtaining property by deception. Five of those charges (19 May; 20 May (x 2); 27 May; 30 May and 11 June) involved
property worth more than $1,000.3 Two charges (27 May) involved

property worth more than $500 but less than $1,0004 and one (27 May also) involved property worth less than $500.5 Reparation of
$20,367.18 was sought. In addition, on 20 June Mr Chapman, acting with an associate, rang a tractor dismantling business and offered to sell a tractor for $7,000. The operator of the business subsequently paid Mr Chapman a $3,000 deposit. Mr Chapman acknowledged having no tractor to sell. One further charge, obtaining by deception, reflected that offending. Reparation of $15,000 was sought from Mr Chapman on that charge.

(b) Conversion (June/July 2014): On three separate occasions (22 June,

12 and 14 July) Mr Chapman took vehicles for test drives and did not return them. On 14 July he used the converted vehicle to hire a trailer for a day. He did not return that trailer either. The total value of the property involved was some $53,000. One of the vehicles, valued at
$23,990, was never recovered. The others were. Reparation of that amount was sought.

(c) Receiving (August 2014): Between 10 and 14 August police found

Mr Chapman and an associate in a vehicle. Mr Chapman admitted

3 Carrying a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment, Crimes Act 1961, s 241(a).
4 Carrying a maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment,…

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 [2015] NZHC 498
Case: [2015] NZHC 498
Decision Date: 17 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Chapman v Police concerns the sentence imposed on Christopher Chapman, who pleaded guilty to multiple charges of dishonesty and breach. The appellant, Chapman, contested the sentence as manifestly excessive, arguing that the sentencing judge had not applied the totality principle correctly. The High Court of New Zealand reviewed the case to determine whether the sentence was disproportionate to the gravity of the overall offending.

The legal issues centered on whether the sentencing judge had properly applied the totality principle as outlined in section 85(2) of the Sentencing Act 2001, ensuring that cumulative sentences did not result in a total period of imprisonment that was wholly disproportionate to the gravity of the overall offending. Specifically, the court examined whether the uplift for previous offending and the overall starting point sentence were appropriate, and if the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the sentencing judge had erred in setting a starting point sentence that was excessively high, given the nature of Chapman's offending and the total loss caused. The court noted that the starting point of six years and nine months was manifestly excessive and that the cumulative uplift of 17 and a half months was also excessive. The court considered the cumulative approach taken by the judge for the obtaining by deception, conversion, and receiving charges, and concluded that a more appropriate approach would have been to impose concurrent sentences for all that offending. The court also determined that the end sentence should reflect a starting point of around two and a half years for the dishonesty offences, with a three-month uplift for previous offending, and a six-month sentence for the burglary charge. Taking all these factors into account, the court substituted an overall sentence of two years and five months’ imprisonment.

The court quashed the original sentence and imposed the revised sentence, consisting of concurrent terms for the various charges, with specific durations allocated for each offence. The burglary charge received a cumulative sentence of four months. This decision ensures that the final sentence aligns more closely with the principles of proportionality and totality as required by the Sentencing Act.

Orders