Collier v Police - [2017] NZHC 2222

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2017-454-006 [2017] NZHC 2222

BETWEEN
PATRICIA STORMY COLLIER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 4 July 2017

Counsel:

S J Parsons for Appellant
T Tran and J J Harvey for Respondent

Judgment:

14 September 2017

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

Introduction

[1] On 28 March 2017, Ms Collier was sentenced following a guilty plea, to two

years and three months’ imprisonment for a “spree” of shoplifting charges.1

[2] The offending was as follows:

(a) a lamp worth $299 from Furniture Tree (6 October 2016);

(b) a basket worth $89 from Bed, Bath and Beyond (12 November); (c) two rugs valued at $1348 from King & Teppett (29 November);
(d)a Dyson vacuum cleaner and a scooter together worth $698 and later another Dyson vacuum cleaner worth $1,149 from Farmers
(24 December);

1 Police v Collier [2017] NZDC 6764.

COLLIER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 2222 [14 September 2017]

(e) two duvet covers worth $300 from Farmers (10 January 2017);

(f) a cushion and a lamp worth $349 from Furniture Fair (11 January); (g) a Dyson vacuum cleaner worth $1100 from Farmers (19 January); (h) meat from New World worth $149.27 (1 February); and
(i) a Dyson cooling fan from Harvey Norman worth $700 (14 February). [3] She appeals against sentence.

District Court decision

[4] Judge Edwards noted that Ms Collier was remanded for sentence on the October offending on 20 December. The last seven offences were committed while on bail awaiting sentence for that offence.

[5] The Judge noted that Ms Collier is a gambling addict and there was a compulsive element to the offending. However, she noted that Ms Collier steals high value items and effectively “steals to order for other people”. On a number of occasions there was a vehicle waiting for her outside the stores when she left with the stolen goods, which again suggests the offending was organised.

[6] Judge Edwards had previously sentenced Ms Collier for similar charges on

24 August 2015. At that time, the Judge reached an end point of 18 months’ imprisonment, which she converted to home detention because of Ms Collier’s personal circumstances. She recorded that she had said on that occasion that she was putting Ms Collier’s children first, and that Ms Collier would not be putting her children first by continuing to steal and risking her liberty.

[7] Judge Edwards adopted a starting point (for all offences) of two years and eight months. That was uplifted by four months for the previous convictions and also because she was subject to post-detention conditions, and, for seven of the charges, she was on bail. The Judge then discounted for guilty pleas, which brought the sentence to two years and three months.

[8] She noted that home detention was not an option, but that she would not have been prepared to impose it in any event. This was because the 2015 sentence was lenient and Ms Collier was put on notice at…

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 Collier v Police

Details

AGLC: Collier v Police [2017] NZHC 2222
Case: [2017] NZHC 2222
Decision Date: 14 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Collier v Police is an appeal against sentence, heard in the High Court of New Zealand. The appellant, Patricia Stormy Collier, had been sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment by Judge Edwards for a series of shoplifting offences. Collier appealed the sentence, arguing that the District Court had failed to adequately consider her personal circumstances and the totality of the offending. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the court should have taken into account the appellant’s post-natal depression at the time of sentencing. The court found that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive and allowed the appeal. The High Court substituted a sentence of two years’ imprisonment, with leave for the appellant to apply to serve the remainder of her sentence by way of home detention if a suitable and safe address can be found. The court also noted that special conditions under s 80D may be appropriate to ensure that the appellant’s treatment continues upon her release to any home detention address if a home detention application is granted.

Orders