Dewdney v Police - [2020] NZHC 954

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-419-000013

[2020] NZHC 954

BETWEEN
MATTHEW JOSEPH DEWDNEY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 21 April and 1 May 2020

Appearances:

S Taylor for Appellant

A S Alcock for Respondent

Judgment:

11 May 2020

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against conviction and sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 May 2020 at 3.30 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

DEWDNEY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 954 [11 May 2020]

[1] Mr Dewdney pleaded guilty in the District Court to charges of assaulting and threatening to kill his mother, intentional damage and dangerous driving. On 23 January 2020, Judge P R Connell declined an application by Mr Dewdney to be discharged without conviction under s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act).1 On the same date the Judge sentenced Mr Dewdney to 12 months judicially monitored intensive supervision.2 On the charge of dangerous driving the Judge convicted and discharged Mr Dewdney but disqualified him from driving for six months.

[2] Mr Dewdney appeals against both conviction and sentence. First, he contends the Judge erred in refusing to grant him a discharge without conviction under s 106 of the Act. In the alternative, he contends the Judge was wrong to impose a sentence of intensive supervision. He says the Judge ought to have imposed a sentence of supervision rather than intensive supervision.

The charges

[3] All of the charges other than that of dangerous driving relate to an incident that occurred on 27 July 2019 at the address where Mr Dewdney was living with his mother. Mr Dewdney dropped his cellphone as he was getting out of a vehicle after arriving home with his father. This caused the screen of the cellphone to break. Mr Dewdney became angry. He stormed inside the address and began demanding that his mother buy him a new cellphone. Mr Dewdney continued to harangue his mother for the next 45 minutes. At one stage during this episode he held a butter knife in his hand and threatened to stab his mother if she did not buy him a new cellphone. Mr Dewdney also picked his mother’s cellphone up and smashed it by throwing it onto the floor.

[4] Mr Dewdney’s mother eventually went outside the house to call the police. Mr Dewdney followed her and wrapped both of his arms around her. He then picked her up and dropped her so that she fell onto her side. This caused his mother to suffer a grazed knee.

1 New Zealand Police v Dewdney [2020] NZDC 1133.
2 New Zealand Police v Dewdney [2020] NZDC 5896.

[5] Mr Dewdney then left the address but returned a short time later, still in an aggressive mood. When he entered the address he punched and kicked the walls of the hallway, causing four holes to be smashed in the walls as a result.

[6] The charge of dangerous driving was laid…

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 Dewdney v Police

Details

AGLC: Dewdney v Police [2020] NZHC 954
Case: [2020] NZHC 954
Decision Date: 11 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Joseph Dewdney, the appellant, challenged his conviction and sentence in the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry. Dewdney had pleaded guilty to assaulting and threatening to kill his mother, intentional damage, and dangerous driving. The District Court Judge had declined Dewdney's application for a discharge without conviction under section 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 and sentenced him to 12 months of judicially monitored intensive supervision. Dewdney appealed both his conviction and the imposed sentence. The legal issues were whether the Judge erred in not granting a discharge without conviction and if the Judge was wrong to impose a sentence of intensive supervision instead of supervision. Dewdney argued that the consequences of his conviction would be disproportionate to the gravity of his offending.

The court examined the gravity of the offending, noting the prolonged episode of violence and threats against Dewdney's mother, but also considered mitigating factors such as his early guilty pleas, remorse, and efforts to rehabilitate. The court assessed the consequences of a conviction, acknowledging that the convictions may impact Dewdney's future career prospects, particularly his bid to be registered as an electrician. However, the court determined that these consequences were not out of proportion to the gravity of the offending. The court also concluded that the sentence of judicially monitored intensive supervision was more restrictive than necessary, as Dewdney had shown insight into his offending and had taken rehabilitative steps. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against the sentence was allowed. The sentence of 12 months of judicially monitored intensive supervision was quashed, and a sentence of 12 months of supervision was imposed instead.

Orders