1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 235(c) and 66. Maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Sections 120(1)(c) and 72. Maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 202(c). Maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 269(2)(a). Maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
5      Sentencing Act 2002, s 71(1)(f). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or fine of
$1,000.
6      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.

Background

Aggravated robbery

[4] Mr Cropp and his associate, Mr Glanville, were driving around the Nelson area attempting to sell fake cannabis ‘tinnies’ to tourists. The tourist who they tried to sell cannabis to is the victim in the aggravated robbery.

[5] On 2 April 2015 at about 7:30 pm, Mr Cropp and Mr Glanville approached the victim and offered to sell him a tinnie. The victim accepted but did not have any money on him. Mr Cropp and Mr Glanville gave the victim a ride to an ATM machine, from which the victim withdrew $100. The three of them returned to a BP station where the victim had left his bags.

[6] After a discussion about the tinnies, the victim said he no longer wanted to buy one. Mr Cropp became angry and began to approach the victim with a knife in his hand. He was pointing the blade at the victim. Mr Cropp demanded the victim give him the money. Mr Glanville also approached the victim and told the victim to give Mr Cropp the money. The victim handed them the money.

Escapes custody, assault with a weapon and intentional damage charges

[7] On 4 April 2015 Mr Cropp was at the Nelson Police Station. He was permitted to speak to a visitor and was placed in a secure room.

[8] Mr Cropp saw a vent in the ceiling. He stood on a stool and broke off the wooden frame from around…

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 Cropp v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Cropp v The Queen [2015] NZHC 2077
Case: [2015] NZHC 2077
Decision Date: 28 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mark Anthony Cropp appeals against a sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment imposed on him by Judge Zohrab in the District Court at Nelson on 26 May 2015. The appeal was heard by Brewer J in the High Court at Nelson on 28 August 2015. The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether home detention should have been imposed. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that home detention was not an appropriate sentence in this case. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that home detention was not an appropriate sentence in this case. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders