Dawson v Police - [2021] NZHC 2340

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2021-463-000068

CRI-2021-463-000069 [2021] NZHC 2340

CHASE DAWSON

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 6 September 2021

Appearances:

A Schulze for the Appellant S Bird for the Crown

Judgment:

8 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 September 2021 at 3 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

DAWSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2340 [8 September 2021]

Introduction

[1] Chase Dawson appeals his sentence of three years and six months’ imprisonment imposed in the Rotorua District Court on 4 June 2021 in respect of the following charges:

(a)robbery;1

(b)burglary;2

(c)conversion of a vehicle;3

(d)driving while disqualified;4

(e)theft (x 4);5

(f)breach of bail (x 3);6 and

(g)obtaining by deception.7

[2] Mr Dawson pleaded guilty to all charges. He argues that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. He contends that the starting point of four years’ imprisonment was too high, that a 15 month uplift for the remainder of the charges was excessive bearing in mind the principle of totality and that the 15 per cent allowance for personal mitigating factors was inadequate.

[3]I turn now to the offending.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 234(1).
2      Section 231(1)(a).
3      Section 226(1)(a).
4      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a).
5      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(d).
6      Bail Act 2000, s 38(a).
7      Crimes Act, ss 240 and 241.

The offending

[4] Mr Dawson does not dispute these facts. I deal principally with the charges of robbery, burglary and conversion as these are the most important for the purposes of the appeal.

[5] At approximately 3.00 pm on 17 October 2020, the victim was in his garden at his home address in Rotorua. He was recovering from a recent operation at home. The victim and the defendant are unknown to one another.

[6] The victim heard a car driving up his driveway and walked towards the approaching vehicle to investigate. The vehicle stopped and Mr Dawson got out. He was wearing a grey hoodie which was pulled over his head, grey sweatpants, and a red face mask covering his whole face apart from his eyes.

[7] Mr Dawson approached the victim and demanded, “Where is it? Give it to us, you have it, you know where it is.” A second person then got out of the vehicle. The victim did not know what Mr Dawson was talking about. Mr Dawson became angry and hit the victim in the head. The victim stumbled from the impact. He was then struck again to the back of his neck/head. This caused him to lose consciousness and fall to the ground. He was then dragged by Mr Dawson and his associate into the garage.

[8] The victim was passing in and out of consciousness as he watched Mr Dawson look through his wallet. Mr Dawson took the wallet, the victim’s cell phone and the watch off his wrist.

[9] Mr Dawson then walked into the house…

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 2340
Case: [2021] NZHC 2340
Decision Date: 8 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chase Dawson appeals against his sentence of three years and six months' imprisonment, imposed by the Rotorua District Court on 4 June 2021, for charges including robbery, burglary, and theft. Dawson argues that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly the starting point of four years for the robbery charge and the uplift for other charges. He also contends that the discount for personal mitigating factors was inadequate. The legal issue for the court to decide was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The court considered the starting point, the uplifts for other charges, and the discount for personal mitigating circumstances. The starting point of four years for the robbery charge was not deemed too high as the offending had the hallmarks of a home invasion, involving planned confrontation, disguise, and violence. The court found that the uplift for other charges, considering previous convictions and offending while on bail, was excessive given Dawson's history of addiction. Dawson's personal mitigating circumstances, including his intention to rehabilitate and leave gang life, warranted a 15 per cent discount, which the court found appropriate.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of the uplift for prior offending and offending while on bail. The sentence of three years and six months was quashed and substituted with a sentence of three years and three months' imprisonment.

Orders