Dawson v Police - [2021] NZHC 3441

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-404-468

[2021] NZHC 3441

BETWEEN
JAEDON MEINATA DAWSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 13 December 2021

Appearances:

S Fernando for the Appellant H J Bell for the Respondent

Judgment:

15 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 December 2021 at 10:00 am.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors / Counsel:
Ms S Fernando, Barrister, Auckland
Mr H J Bell, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland

DAWSON v POLICE [2021] NZHC 3441 [15 December 2021]

Introduction

[1] Mr Dawson pleaded guilty to two charges of unlawfully using a motor vehicle,1 three charges of breaching home detention2 and one charge of breaching post detention conditions.3 On 1 October 2021, in the District Court at Waitākere, he was sentenced by Judge J M Jelaš to 15 months’ imprisonment.4

[2] Mr Dawson appeals against this decision on the basis this sentence is manifestly excessive. He advances three grounds of appeal: that insufficient weight was given to mitigating factors; too much weight was given to non-compliance with court orders to impose a cumulative sentence; and, the starting point adopted by the Judge was too high.

Offending

[3] The offending can conveniently be set out in chronological order, with the sentence breaches occurring before the motor vehicle offending.

[4] On 26 November 2020, Mr Dawson was absent from his electronically monitored residence. Then, on 4 April 2021, he tampered with the GPS tracker by cutting the strap. Next, on 27 April 2021, Mr Dawson failed to submit to electronic monitoring by failing to adequately charge the GPS tracker. His sentence of home detention expired on 2 May 2021. He was subject to six months standard post- detention conditions from that date until 2 November 2021. In breach of those conditions, on 4 May 2021, he failed to report to a Probation Officer when required to do so.

[5] On 8 May 2021, Mr Dawson found driving a Subaru without the permission or authority of the registered owner. On 31 May 2021, he was recorded on CCTV in possession of a BMW he did not have authority to drive or use.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 226(1). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 80S. Maximum penalty: one year imprisonment or fine of $2,000.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 80U. Maximum penalty: six months’ imprisonment or fine of $1,500. Counsel referred to two charges under s 80S and two under s 80U, but nothing turns on this.
4      New Zealand Police v Dawson [2021] NZDC 19596.

District Court decision

[6] After setting out the background to the offending, the Judge described Mr Dawson’s “unfortunate history”. She noted that, since 2012, he had been repeatedly before the courts and, since 2016, sentenced to several periods of imprisonment. None had a deterrent effect. The Judge acknowledged Mr Dawson’s addictions as a significant contributing factor in his offending along with…

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 Dawson v Police

Details

AGLC: Dawson v Police [2021] NZHC 3441
Case: [2021] NZHC 3441
Decision Date: 15 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand dealt with an appeal from Mr Dawson, who was sentenced by the District Court to 15 months' imprisonment for multiple charges, including unlawfully using a motor vehicle, breaching home detention, and breaching post-detention conditions. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to insufficient consideration of mitigating factors, overemphasis on non-compliance with court orders, and an excessively high starting point for sentencing. The court considered the arguments on the starting point for the unlawful use of a motor vehicle charges, the imposition of a cumulative sentence for the breaches, and the consideration of personal mitigating circumstances. The court found that the starting point was appropriate, that there was no double counting or improper totality considerations, and that the Judge was best placed to assess the mitigating factors, which did not warrant a net discount beyond the credit for the guilty plea. Consequently, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders