Coulson v R - [2012] NZCA 420

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA22/2012
[2012] NZCA 420

BETWEEN PETER NEIL COULSON
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 22 August 2012

Court: White, Heath and Fogarty JJ

Counsel: A J McKenzie for Appellant
R J Collins for Respondent

Judgment: 17 September 2012 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.

B The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Heath J)

Introduction

Mr Coulson pleaded guilty in the District Court at Timaru to 17 charges involving dishonesty, physical assault and administration of justice offences.[1] On 25 November 2011, Judge Crosbie imposed an effective sentence of five years and six months imprisonment, seemingly to reflect the totality of the offending.
[1]R v Coulson DC Timaru CRI-2010-009-10586, 25 November 2011 (the Sentencing Notes) at [1].
Mr Coulson appeals against sentence, on the ground that the end sentence is manifestly excessive.
Although Mr Coulson was charged in respect of his wide range of offending both indictably and summarily, this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal relating to all of the offending by virtue of s 384A of the Crimes Act 1961.

The facts

The dishonesty offending arose mainly out of incidents that occurred between January and April 2010. Mr Coulson (on some occasions assisted by a female accomplice, who was later the victim of a number of assaults) stole (among other things) four large brass rings from a retailer, items of jewellery, an expensive watch, two laptop computers, one data show projector, a diamond ring and two iPod players. Additionally, on 13 July 2010 Mr Coulson stole some petrol.
The violence began on 21 April 2010. Mr Coulson punched the complainant (the female accomplice in the thefts) in the right eye, threw her to the ground and held her there a short while. He then took her home.
On 12 May the appellant returned to the complainant’s home. She asked him to leave four times and he refused. He only left when told the police had been informed. This event formed the basis of the trespass charge.
The complainant made a complaint of assault against Mr Coulson on 12 May. Subsequently, he was arrested and released on a bail condition requiring that he not contact her. On 14 May 2010, the complainant obtained a protection order against Mr Coulson.
Notwithstanding the terms of bail and the existence of the protection order, Mr Coulson arrived at the complainant’s home in Christchurch at about 10 am on 10 July 2010. A series of assaults followed, over a period of some 20 minutes. They took place after Mr Coulson had entered the house without permission. At the time, the complainant and her partner were in bed. A closed circuit television camera captured a number of the assaults.
After some initial verbal abuse, Mr Coulson grabbed the female complainant and pushed her off the bed. He then kicked her in the stomach and ribs while…

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 Coulson v R

Details

AGLC: Coulson v R [2012] NZCA 420
Case: [2012] NZCA 420
Decision Date: 17 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Coulson appeals against his sentence, arguing it is manifestly excessive. The District Court sentenced Coulson to five years and six months imprisonment for various charges, including dishonesty, violence, and administration of justice offences. The Court of Appeal assessed whether the cumulative sentences were appropriate, considering the totality of the offending and relevant sentencing principles. The Crown argued that cumulative sentences were suitable as the offences were different in kind. The Court of Appeal determined that while the burglary charge had the highest maximum penalty, the violence was the most serious aspect of the offending. They found a starting point of two years for injuring with intent to injure, and an uplift of two years for the additional physical assaults, resulting in a starting point of four years for the violent offences. Considering the dishonesty and administration of justice offences, the Court of Appeal found an overall starting point of six years. They also took into account personal aggravating factors, such as offending while on bail and a history of criminal behaviour, which justified a further uplift of six months. The Court of Appeal concluded that the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive, dismissing the appeal.

Final orders: The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders