Crawford v Police - [2015] NZHC 3262

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-404-000362

CRI-2014-004-011946 [2015] NZHC 3262

BETWEEN
ALLAN CRAWFORD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 14 December 2015

Appearances:

D Dickinson for Appellant
J Barry for Respondent

Judgment:

16 December 2015

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie on 16 December 2015 at 4.15pm
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:……………………………….

Solicitors/counsel:
D Dickinson, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Auckland

CRAWFORD v NZ POLICE [2015] NZHC 3262 [16 December 2015]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Mr Crawford, appeals against a sentence of two years and eight months’ imprisonment on 14 charges all relating to dishonesty, and including three charges of burglary.

[2] Details of the charges are as follows:

Charge Date of Offence Date Laid

Burglary (42 Wakefield Street) 19 August 2014 21 November 2014

Burglary (2 Wakefield Street) 24 August 2014 9 February 2015

Burglary (2 Wakefield Street) 26 September 2014 21 November 2014

Dishonestly used a document

(Q Credit Card – Prasad)

19 and 26 October

2014 (representative)
21 November 2014

Dishonestly used a document

(Onecard Visa – Prasad)

15-20 October 2014

(representative
9 February 2015

Receiving; over $1,000 (four

HP laptop computers value:
$6187)

3 November–20

November 2014
9 February 2015

Receiving; $500-$1000 (four

cards in name of Davis and
Samsung mobile)

27 October-28

October 2014
21 November 2015

Obtain by deception (Vodafone

mobile number and iPhone – Prasad’s wife)

31 October-6

November 2014
9 February 2015

Obtain by deception

(Warehouse Stationary account
– Beepee Holdings)
2 November 2014 9 February 2015

Obtain by deception (Taxi

charge voucher booklet –
Beepee Holdings)

11 August – 20

November 2014
21 November 2014

Obtain by deception (GE

Finance Q Card – Prasad)

11 August – 20

October 2014
21 November 2014

Obtain by deception (Spark

Telephone Account – Prasad)
3 November 2014 21 November 2014

Obtain by deception (Bunnings

Trade Card – Beepee
Holdings)
3 October 2014 9 February 2015

Obtain by deception (Onecard

Visa – Prasad)

4 October – 15

October 2014
9 February 2015

[3] The sentence was imposed by Judge AA Couch in the District Court at

Auckland.1

1 Police v Crawford [2015] NZDC 20420.

[4] Mr Crawford appeals his sentence on the basis that it is wrong in principle, or alternatively, that it is manifestly excessive.

Relevant facts

[5] The various charges were committed between August and November 2014. The most serious are the three charges of burglary.

[6] On 19 August, at about 9.28pm, Mr Crawford entered the Auckland University of Technology (“AUT”) building in Wakefield Street, Auckland City. He approached an office door that was locked and attempted to gain entry. He was unable to do so and he then left the building.

[7] At about 11.08pm on the same day, Mr Crawford returned to the AUT building. He approached the door to an office. Using a screwdriver or similar, he attempted to jemmy open the door. Again, he was unsuccessful. He then tried to force the door…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Crawford v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NZHC 3262
Decision Date: 16 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Crawford v Police concerns a sentence imposed on the appellant, Allan Crawford, by Judge Couch in the Auckland District Court. Crawford was convicted on 14 charges of dishonesty, including three charges of burglary. The appellant appealed the sentence of two years and eight months’ imprisonment, arguing that it was wrong in principle or alternatively, that it was manifestly excessive. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was appropriate.

The court considered the starting point of the sentence, the uplift for previous convictions, and the discounts for mitigating factors. The appellant argued that the starting point was too high, the uplift was excessive, and that the mitigating factors were not adequately taken into account. The Crown, on the other hand, argued that the starting point was appropriate, the uplift was justified, and the overall discount was not inappropriate.

The High Court found that the starting point was within the available range, and the uplift was not inappropriate given the appellant's criminal history. The court also found that the appellant was entitled to discounts for remorse, rehabilitative efforts, and the period spent on restrictive bail. The High Court allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment on each of the burglary charges, to be served concurrently, and a term of imprisonment of twelve months on each of the other charges, also to be served concurrently.

In summary, the High Court of New Zealand allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment on each of the burglary charges, to be served concurrently, and a term of imprisonment of twelve months on each of the other charges, also to be served concurrently.

Orders