Legal Research
Cases
Curtis v Police

Curtis v Police

Case [2019] NZHC 1623 12 July 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-000188

[2019] NZHC 1623

BETWEEN
JOSHUA CURTIS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 8 July 2019

Appearances:

P McNabb and G Vear for the Appellant

W Fotherby and B Rorrison for the Respondent

Judgment:

12 July 2019

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 12 July 2019 at 11:30 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Public Defence Service, Auckland

Meredith Connell (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Auckland

CURTIS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1623 [12 July 2019]

[1] On 26 March 2019, Joshua Dean Curtis was sentenced on one charge of burglary to 20 months’ imprisonment by Judge Jelas in the Waitakere District Court.1 He now appeals against sentence on the basis that the sentence is manifestly excessive and not the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances.2

Summary of facts

[2] At about 1.45 am on 10 July 2018 the appellant and an unknown associate went to a residential property in Massey, Auckland. At the time, the occupants of the address were in the process of moving to the South Island and had a secured shipping container situated next to the garage on their property. The shipping container contained a significant amount of their possessions.

[3] The appellant and his associate entered the property by removing a padlock to the main gate. Once inside the property, the appellant and his associate used an unknown tool to damage a handle retainer on the container door allowing the handle to be used to enter the container. Once inside the container, the appellant and his associate forced open a gun safe and removed in excess of 700 rounds of ammunition as well as a hunting scope and two hunting knives. They then proceeded to search through the container and uplifted and took away multiple bottles of alcohol and a safe containing a large amount of jewellery. The stolen property had an estimated combined value of $42,000.

District Court sentence

[4] At the outset, Judge Jelas noted the fact that the burglary charge occurred during the currency of two sentences of intensive supervision to which the appellant had been sentenced. The Department of Corrections had applied to cancel the sentences of intensive supervision on the basis of an assessment that Mr Curtis was unlikely to comply with a community-based sentence.

[5] The Judge referred to the summary of facts and the victim impact statement. She also noted that the appellant’s explanation for the offending was that he needed

1 New Zealand Police v Curtis [2019] NZDC 5524.
2 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2)(a).

some extra cash to finance his drug habit. The Judge then moved to consider the starting point for the offending. She took into account the fact that the appellant entered a residential address, albeit that he did not enter the house. The effect on the victims had…

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 Curtis v Police

Details

AGLC: Curtis v Police [2019] NZHC 1623
Case: [2019] NZHC 1623
Decision Date: 12 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joshua Curtis appeals against the 20-month imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge Jelas at the Waitakere District Court on one charge of burglary. The appeal is based on the argument that the sentence is manifestly excessive and not the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances. The case revolves around the burglary of a secured shipping container on a residential property in Massey, Auckland, during the early hours of 10 July 2018. The appellant and an associate entered the property, damaged a handle retainer on the container door, and removed over 700 rounds of ammunition, a hunting scope, hunting knives, multiple bottles of alcohol, and a safe containing a large amount of jewellery. The stolen property had an estimated combined value of $42,000. The appellant's explanation for the offending was that he needed some extra cash to finance his drug habit. Judge Jelas decided on a starting point of 20 months’ imprisonment, taking into account the substantial effect on the victims, the element of preparedness, and the appellant's previous convictions for burglary and other dishonesty offending. An uplift of six months’ imprisonment was imposed, and a discount of six months’ imprisonment was given for the appellant’s guilty plea, resulting in the final sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment. The appellant argues that the starting point was disproportionate to the facts of the offending and was not consistent with similar offending committed in similar circumstances. The respondent argues that the starting point adopted was appropriate and responded to the circumstance of the offending. The court agrees with the Judge that the distinction between entry into the container and entry into the house is not great, and that the starting point of 20 months’ imprisonment was appropriate. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant has subsequently pleaded guilty to the aggravated robbery of a Wendy’s Restaurant on 29 April 2018 and is due to be sentenced for this further offending on 23 August 2019. A cumulative sentence should be imposed after having regard to the totality principle.

Orders