Cottle v Police - [2018] NZHC 1928

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2018-412-14 & 15

[2018] NZHC 1928

BETWEEN
WILLIAM HILLIS COTTLE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 30 July 2018

Appearances:

L A Andersen for Appellant R D Smith for Respondent

Judgment:

31 July 2018

JUDGMENT AND REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J

Judgment

[1] Judgment was delivered in Court on 31 July 2017. The Judgment is recorded in these Reasons for Judgment.

Introduction

[2] William Cottle was convicted on charges of intentional damage with reckless disregard for the safety of the victim, assault with intent to injure, wilful damage, and two charges each of possession of an offensive weapon and reckless driving. The District Court Judge sentenced Mr Cottle to two years and two months imprisonment.1

1 Police v Cottle [2018] NZDC 9685.

COTTLE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 1928 [31 July 2018]

He appeals this sentence on the basis of an error was made in calculating the final sentence, and that the final sentence was manifestly excessive.

Facts

[3] At about 5:30pm on 6 July 2017, the 19-year-old appellant was driving his car along Glenelg Street in Dunedin when he saw someone who he believed owed him money driving towards him in a Hilux. He swerved across the centre line, causing the victim to take evasive action to avoid a collision, and narrowly avoided a collision with a parked car. The appellant made a U-turn and followed the victim to the motorway, where he passed his car and pulled just in front of him, causing him to brake heavily to avoid a nose to tail collision. He followed the victim to Mosgiel, where he stopped. The appellant stopped behind him, before driving into the Hilux with enough force to move it forward about a metre. He reversed and rammed into the Hilux twice more. The victim and an associate were still in the vehicle at the time. When they got out of the Hilux, uninjured, the appellant drove away. This resulted in one of the reckless driving charges.

[4] At about 10.30pm on 6 November 2017, the appellant was driving in the Dunedin CBD. He saw his ex-partner with a male associate in a car and became jealous, intentionally ramming the car from behind when stopped at a red traffic signal. He reversed before ramming into the car again, causing more damage to the rear bumper. The victims fled in the car to avoid being rammed again. This resulted in the second reckless driving charge.

[5] Later that evening, the appellant drove to his ex-partner’s house and sat outside watching the property. At about 1.00am, his ex-partner and the man she was with drove up to the house, to drop her off. As she got out of the car, the appellant walked towards the car with a large axe in one hand and a knife in the other. The male victim was sitting in the driver’s seat and locked…

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 Cottle v Police

Details

AGLC: Cottle v Police [2018] NZHC 1928
Case: [2018] NZHC 1928
Decision Date: 31 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, William Cottle, appealed against his sentence for multiple charges including intentional damage, assault with intent to injure, and possession of offensive weapons. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Dunedin Registry. The appellant contested the accuracy of the final sentence and argued that it was manifestly excessive. The District Court had sentenced the appellant to two years and two months imprisonment. The appellant's counsel argued that the sentence was incorrectly calculated and was too high, particularly given the appellant's youth and late guilty pleas. They submitted that the sentence should be reduced to home detention. The respondent argued that the sentence was within the appropriate range and that the appellant's previous conviction for violent offending should have warranted an uplift in the starting point. They also submitted that home detention was not an appropriate sentence given the nature of the offending.

The court found that the starting point of three years imprisonment was appropriate given the premeditated nature of the final incident and the appellant's previous conviction. The court found that the credits given for mitigating factors, including the appellant's youth and late guilty pleas, were within the appropriate range. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not the least restrictive sentence available and that the purposes of sentencing were met by home detention. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of two years and two months imprisonment was replaced with one of eight months home detention and 200 hours community work. The court imposed specific conditions on the home detention, including attending rehabilitation programmes and counselling, and not associating with the victims without prior approval. The court also directed judicial monitoring to assess the appellant's response to the sentence imposed.

Orders