Dawson v Police - [2020] NZHC 2296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2020-409-000106

[2020] NZHC 2296

BETWEEN
WILLIAM EDWARD DAWSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 3 September 2020

Counsel:

K L Chalmers for the Appellant A Harvey for the Respondent

Judgment:

4 September 2020

JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Doogue on 4 September 2020 at 9.30 am.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Christchurch

DAWSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 2296 [4 September 2020]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Mr Dawson, appeals a sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Garland on 26 June 2020.1 The sentence was imposed on him after he pleaded guilty to: two charges of burglary;2 unlawfully using a motor vehicle;3 common assault;4 and presenting a firearm.5

[2]Mr Dawson appeals his sentence, primarily upon the following grounds:

(a)the sentence imposed by the Judge was manifestly excessive;

(b)Mr Dawson should have received a greater discount for his cooperation with police, and a further discrete discount of five per cent for remorse and offer to pay reparation; and

(c)not enough credit was given in respect of guilty pleas entered against the lead charges.

Factual background

The burglary charges

[3] In relation to the two burglary charges, the location of the premises was a remote rural residential property. The victim and his family were not at home during the period that these two burglaries took place.

[4] At about 9.00 am on 11 April 2019, Mr Dawson drove to a rural residential area in Loburn, North Canterbury, with the intention of committing a burglary. He arrived at the victim’s property and entered several sheds. He began loading up his motor vehicle with items from the shed, all belonging to the victim, including a gas bottle, a small safe containing ammunition, power tools, and chainsaws. He then used crowbars and a chainsaw to remove a large firearm safe, which was affixed to the shed

1      Police v Dawson [2020] NZDC 12164.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 226(1); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 196; maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment.
5      Arms Act 1983, s 52(1); maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or $10,000 fine.

wall. That safe contained a .22 calibre semi-automatic rifle. He then left, with the property that he had stolen.

[5] At about 10.00 am on the same day, Mr Dawson returned to the property with an associate, this time driving a larger vehicle. Both men entered a shed on the property, and gathered further items belonging to the victim, loading all the stolen materials into their vehicle. These items included more power tools, a flat screen television, and speakers. Mr Dawson’s associate drove away from the property on the victim’s motorbike. Mr Dawson drove away in the vehicle, with the other stolen property aboard.

[6] During both burglaries, Mr Dawson hid his appearance by wearing a jacket with a hood up and at times…

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 [2020] NZHC 2296
Case: [2020] NZHC 2296
Decision Date: 4 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

William Edward Dawson appeals his sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment imposed for burglary, unlawfully using a motor vehicle, common assault, and presenting a firearm. The court must determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and if any errors in the discount calculations were made. Ms Chalmers, for Mr Dawson, submits that the starting point for the burglary charges was out of proportion to the offending and that the Judge should have given a greater discount for his cooperation with the police, as well as a further discount for remorse and offer to pay reparation. The Judge’s discount for guilty pleas was also inadequate as it was based on one set of charges, not the totality of the offending. Mr Harvey, for the respondent, argues that the starting point was not manifestly excessive and that the Judge’s discount for cooperation was appropriate, if not generous. The court finds that the starting point of two and a half years’ imprisonment for the two burglary charges is not manifestly excessive and is consistent with the guidance set out by the Court of Appeal. The discount for guilty pleas is appropriate, and the discount for cooperation is generous given that Mr Dawson did not acknowledge his role in the second burglary. The Judge was correct not to give a discount for remorse. The end sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment is not manifestly excessive. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders