Charlett v Police - [2022] NZHC 1029

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2022-409-42

[2022] NZHC 1029

BETWEEN
DANIEL CHARLETT

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 5 May 2022

Appearances:

A J McKenzie for Appellant

J H Whitcombe for Respondent

Judgment:

5 May 2022

Reasons:

13 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

[Reasons]

Introduction

[1] Daniel Charlett, 19 years old at the time of his offending, was sentenced1 in the Christchurch District Court by Judge Couch to a total of two years and four months’ (28 months’) imprisonment on the following charges:

(a)injuring by unlawful act;2

(b)threatening to damage a dwelling house with intent to intimidate;3

1      Police v Charlett [2022] NZDC 4014.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 190 – maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, s 308(a) – maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.

CHARLETT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 1029 [13 May 2022]

(c)exceeding the speed limit;4

(d)possession of cannabis plant for supply;5

(e)possession of cannabis utensils;6

(f)driving a vehicle while his licence was suspended;7 and

(g)operating a vehicle in a manner causing it to undergo sustained loss of traction.8

[2] Mr Charlett appealed against that sentence on the basis it was manifestly excessive and that a sentence of home detention was appropriate. In a Results Judgment, I allowed the appeal, quashing the sentence and replacing it with one of nine months’ detention (with conditions).9 These are the reasons for that decision.

Facts

AInjuring by unlawful act

[3] In the evening of 16 March 2021, Mr Charlett drove to a pizza store at Eastgate Mall, Christchurch. At the same time, the victim, a man whom Mr Charlett knew, arrived. He followed the victim into the store and began questioning him about an alleged debt. Without warning, Mr Charlett punched the victim with full force on his nose, causing him to stumble backwards, and his nose to become deformed and bleed. Mr Charlett then exited the store and drove away. The victim was treated at the scene by ambulance staff and sustained a broken nose. This led to a charge of injuring by an unlawful act.

4      Land Transport Act 1998, s 40; Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999, regs 3 and 4; Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, r 5.1(1) – maximum penalty of a fine of $1,000.
5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(c) – maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment.
6      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 13(1)(a) and (3) – maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment and/or a fine of $500.
7      Land Transport Act, s 32(1)(c) and (3) – maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine of $4,500; and at least six months’ disqualification from holding a driver licence.
8      Land Transport Act, ss 22A, 35(2), 36A(1)(c) and (4) – maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine of $4,500; and at least six months’ disqualification from holding a driver licence.
9      Charlett v Police [2022] NZHC 938.

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 Charlett v Police

Details

AGLC: Charlett v Police [2022] NZHC 1029
Case: [2022] NZHC 1029
Decision Date: 5 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daniel Charlett appealed against a sentence imposed on him by the Christchurch District Court. The District Court had imposed a sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment on Mr Charlett after he had pleaded guilty to seven charges. Mr Charlett appealed on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that a sentence of home detention was appropriate. His Honour Justice Osborne allowed the appeal, quashing the sentence and substituting a sentence of nine months’ home detention (with conditions). The offending comprised violence-related offending (punching a man in the nose, breaking it, and causing it to bleed, and threatening to burn down the houses of several people to avoid prosecution for the assault), possession of cannabis for supply and possession of utensils, and driving-related offending (driving while suspended, speeding and loss of traction). The District Court had rejected a sentencing indication it had provided to Mr Charlett and proceeded to sentence him. The Crown accepted the sentence was too long and that a sentence of home detention should be considered. The Court considered the violence-related offending warranted a starting point of 16 months’ imprisonment, while the cannabis-related offending warranted a starting point of 20 months’ imprisonment. The Court accepted an uplift was appropriate for offending while on bail, and that a discount was appropriate for Mr Charlett’s youth and rehabilitative prospects. The Court substituted a sentence of nine months’ home detention for the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the District Court.

Orders