Cooke v Police - [2014] NZHC 3224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-000378 [2014] NZHC 3224

BETWEEN
CRANE CHARLES COOKE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 15 December 2014

Appearances:

A Kashyap for Appellant
L M Mills for Respondent

Judgment:

15 December 2014

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland
Copy to: A Kashyap, Auckland

COOKE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 3224 [15 December 2014]

[1] Crane Cooke pleaded guilty to four charges of breaching a protection order, driving with excess blood alcohol, driving with excess breath alcohol, driving contrary to a limited licence, driving at excessive speed and driving whilst his licence was suspended.

[2] On 25 July 2014 in the District Court at Auckland Judge E P Paul sentenced Mr Cooke to imprisonment for one year, eight months.1 Mr Cooke appeals against the sentence.

[3] The appeal was filed out of time. Mr Kashyap has done his best to obtain an affidavit from Mr Cooke in support of the application for leave to appeal. An affidavit has been prepared. It has been signed by Mr Cooke, although it has not been formally sworn. In light of the matters set out in that document and I apprehend the Crown prepared to deal with the matter on the substantive merits, I grant leave for Mr Cooke to bring the appeal out of time.

[4] I take the facts from the Judge’s summary. Mr Cooke and the first protected person had been in a relationship in early 2002. Ultimately that broke down to the extent he assaulted her. When released on bail he returned to her house with a gun and effectively held her hostage. The Armed Offenders Squad were called. She obtained a final protection order against Mr Cooke in 2007. Earlier this year, in the afternoon of 16 February 2014, Mr Cooke went to the protected person’s address. He drove down her driveway and spoke to her. She called for her husband to come outside. There was a conversation between the parties. Mr Cooke was asked to leave. The protected person went inside. Mr Cooke remained for a further five minutes. The police were called and it is apparent from the victim impact statement the effect that Mr Cooke’s breach of the protection order has had on her. She lives in fear of him.

[5] There is then the breach of the second protection order. A second person obtained a protection order against Mr Cooke in February this year. On 12 March Mr Cooke was in police custody on unrelated matters. The second protected person
missed a phone call that evening. A message was left recording “Gidday it’s me,

1 New Zealand Police v Cooke DC Auckland CRI-2014-044-000626, 25 July 2014.

give me a call back”. The second protected person recognised the voice as Mr

Cooke’s. When spoken to he said he could not recall making the call.

[6] To compound the matter there were then further breaches of the protection order against the second protected person. On…

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 Cooke v Police

Details

AGLC: Cooke v Police [2014] NZHC 3224
Case: [2014] NZHC 3224
Decision Date: 15 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Venning J presided over the appeal by Crane Charles Cooke against the sentence imposed by Judge E P Paul in the District Court at Auckland. Mr Cooke was sentenced to one year and eight months' imprisonment for multiple breaches of protection orders, driving with excess blood and breath alcohol, driving at excessive speed, and driving while his license was suspended. The appeal was filed out of time, but Venning J granted leave for the appeal to proceed due to the circumstances outlined in an affidavit from Mr Cooke and the Crown's willingness to address the substantive merits. The court examined the serious nature of Mr Cooke's breaches of protection orders, his high levels of alcohol while driving, and his history of similar offenses.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by Judge Paul was manifestly excessive. The appellant's counsel, A Kashyap, argued that the sentence was disproportionate compared to sentences in other cases with similar offending, and that the Judge failed to adequately consider Mr Cooke's mental state at the time of the offenses. Counsel cited previous cases where offenders received lesser sentences for comparable offenses. Venning J considered the unique facts and circumstances of Mr Cooke's case, including the severity of his breaches of protection orders and his extensive criminal history. The court found that the starting point of one year and three months' imprisonment was appropriate, given the nature and extent of the offenses.

Venning J rejected the appeal, finding that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offenses and Mr Cooke's criminal history. The court acknowledged the significant impact of Mr Cooke's breaches of protection orders on the victims and the community, and emphasized the importance of deterrence and denunciation. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders