AThe appeal is allowed.
BThe sentences imposed in the District Court on all charges are quashed. In their place the following sentences are substituted:
(a)on the charge of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm a sentence of five years and six months imprisonment is imposed; and
(b)on the charges of counselling and aiding another to obtain a pecuniary advantage by dishonestly using a document a sentence of six months imprisonment is imposed on each. Such sentences are concurrent with each other but cumulative on the injuring charge resulting in a total sentence of six years imprisonment.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Stevens J)

Introduction

The appellant, Mr Cooper-Siggleko, appeals his sentence of six years and nine months imprisonment imposed in the District Court by Judge O’Driscoll on one charge of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) and two charges of being a party to the dishonest use of a document in order to obtain a pecuniary advantage (benefit fraud charges).[1] He advances four grounds:
(a)the sentence of six years imprisonment for the injuring count was manifestly excessive;
(b)the sentence of nine months for the benefit fraud charges was manifestly excessive;
(c)the nine month sentence should not have been made cumulative upon the six year sentence; and
(d)the overall sentence offended against the totality principle in s 85 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

Factual background

[1]R v Cooper-Siggleko DC Dunedin CRI-2011-012-628, 28 August 2012 [Sentencing decision].

The charge of injuring with intent to cause GBH occurred on 6 February 2011 when the complainant, a policewoman, and her female colleague visited the appellant’s address in Dunedin. The two police officers went there to conduct a bail check on the appellant, who at the time was on bail for another violent offence. One of the appellant’s bail conditions was that he was not to consume alcohol. The police officers conducted a breath test, which he failed.
When the complainant attempted to arrest the appellant, he knocked her to the ground and sat on top of her, trapping her arms. He then began to punch her around the head. The trial judge found that the appellant delivered at least 10 such blows.[2] The appellant was joined in the attack by his younger brother, who was only 15 years old. The second police officer was able to restrain the brother. The complainant managed to escape from the appellant and both police officers left the address. The complainant, who was hospitalised overnight, received a bleeding nose and tissue damage to her wrist.
[2]Sentencing decision at [6].
The benefit fraud charges involved both the appellant and his partner obtaining overpayments of benefits totalling in excess of…

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 Cooper-Siggleko v R

Details

AGLC: Cooper-Siggleko v R [2012] NZCA 580
Case: [2012] NZCA 580
Decision Date: 11 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jamie Trev Cooper-Siggleko appeals against the sentence of six years and nine months imprisonment imposed on him in the District Court. He was convicted of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and two charges of being a party to the dishonest use of a document in order to obtain a pecuniary advantage. The appeal is against the sentence, and specifically the contention that the District Court erred in imposing the sentence. The Court of Appeal considers four grounds of appeal: the sentence for the injuring count was manifestly excessive; the sentence of nine months for the benefit fraud charges was manifestly excessive; the nine month sentence should not have been made cumulative upon the six year sentence; and the overall sentence offended against the totality principle in s 85 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The Court of Appeal considers the sentence for the injuring charge first. The Court finds the starting point of five years and six months imprisonment was appropriate. The Court finds the uplift of one year for the fact that the appellant was on bail for an earlier violent crime should be no more than six months. The Court considers that no further uplift was necessary for the prior offending. The Court considers the appellant's attempts at rehabilitation, but finds no reason to interfere with the Judge's decision not to give a discount for the appellant's attempts at rehabilitation.

The Court considers the benefit fraud sentence next. The Court finds the starting point of 12 months was not outside the available range. The Court finds that the sentence of nine months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. The Court finds that any sentence for the benefit fraud charges was appropriately made cumulative on the sentence for the injuring charge. The Court finds that the Judge did not consider whether the total sentence resulted in a period of imprisonment wholly out of proportion to the gravity of the overall offending.

The appeal is allowed. The sentences imposed in the District Court on all charges are quashed. In their place the following sentences are substituted: a sentence of five years and six months imprisonment on the charge of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm; and a sentence of six months imprisonment on each of the charges of counselling and aiding another to obtain a pecuniary advantage by dishonestly using a document. Such sentences are concurrent with each other but cumulative on the injuring charge resulting in a total sentence of six years imprisonment.

Orders