Dass v Police - [2015] NZHC 2431

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-419-000025 [2015] NZHC 2431

BETWEEN
JAMIE ZANE DASS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 9 September 2015

Counsel:

D Venter for Appellant
TA Needham for Respondent

Judgment:

6 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 6 October 2015 at 3 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Eastside Law, Hamilton.
Almao Douch, Hamilton.

DASS v NZ POLICE [2015] NZHC 2431 [6 October 2015]

Introduction

[1] The appellant Jamie Zane Dass between 14 December 2014 and 30 January

2015 went on a spree of offending, not for the first time.

[2] On 28 April 2015, having entered pleas of guilty, Judge Spear sentenced him to a total of three years, nine months’ imprisonment for the following charges:

(a) burglary x 2;

(b) obtaining property by deception x 7;

(c) breaching prison release conditions x 2; (d) breaching Court bail; and
(e) possessing cannabis.

He appeals against sentence on the basis that his sentence was manifestly excessive. [3] There was an error in the entry of convictions, which by consent, I have

corrected.1

Background

[4] The offending which spanned a period of six weeks took place while Mr Dass was subject to prison release conditions and Court bail. His method of operation was to approach strangers and then, appealing to their better instincts, seek money by telling them a fabricated story. That story would be along the lines that his wife was very ill and was in hospital, or that he had to pick up his children, or that he required money for petrol. He would often weep while telling these lies. He was clearly convincing. He would persuade victims to go to ATM machines to withdraw funds.
The amounts varied from sums of $100 down to sums of $20.

1 Dass v Police HC Hamilton CRI-2015-419-000025, 9 September 2015 (minute).

[5] The victim impact statements show that the victims were seriously affected by his actions. Their trust in him and wish to do the right thing was abused. The money they lost was money they needed for their daily lives.

[6] In addition on two occasions he was stopped entering properties for the purpose of burglary. The summary of facts is not detailed. On one of these he had smashed open a glass panel of a louvre window he was endeavouring to remove so he could get into the house.

[7] Judge Spear had originally given a sentencing indication indicating a lengthy sentence of imprisonment, given the nature of the offending and Mr Dass’ previous convictions for dishonest offending. When he sentenced Mr Dass, he described the offending as “simply disgusting and deplorable”.2 He quoted from the statement of a victim of the offending who was 67 years of age and lived with her very sick 76 year old husband. Mr Dass had gone to her twice telling his untrue story, and the Judge quoted this statement from…

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 Dass v Police

Details

AGLC: Dass v Police [2015] NZHC 2431
Case: [2015] NZHC 2431
Decision Date: 6 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jamie Zane Dass appeals against his sentence for a series of offences committed between December 2014 and January 2015, which include burglary, obtaining property by deception, breaching prison release conditions and bail, and possessing cannabis. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the seriousness of the offending, the need for denunciation and deterrence, the totality principle, and the offender's history of reoffending.

The court began by assessing the appropriate starting points for each offence. It found that the starting point for the burglary charges should have been two years' imprisonment, two months for the obtaining by deception charges, and six months for the other offences. This resulted in a total starting point of three years and nine months' imprisonment, which the court found to be appropriate. The court considered the totality principle, which requires that cumulative sentences of imprisonment should not result in a total period of imprisonment that is wholly disproportionate to the gravity of the overall offending. However, the court decided that a modest further deduction was appropriate, resulting in a final sentence of three years and nine months' imprisonment, the same as the sentence imposed by the original sentencing judge.

The court upheld the sentence, finding that the offending was a long episode of flagrant dishonesty that caused significant damage to the community. The sentence was within the range and justified in the circumstances. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders