Dickson v Police - [2017] NZHC 2815

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2017-404-319

CRI 2017-404-320 [2017] NZHC 2815

BETWEEN
AMANDA ANNE DICKSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 13 November 2017

Counsel:

J Griffin for the Appellant
H Benson-Pope & S Murphy for Respondent

Judgment:

16 November 2017

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 November 2017 at 3.00 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau
Public Defence Service, Manukau

DICKSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 2815 [16 November 2017]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Ms Dickson, was sentenced in the Manukau District Court to

21 months’ imprisonment on 13 charges involving dishonesty and drug-related offending.1 These were one charge each of: burglary, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, cultivation of cannabis, possession of cannabis, possession of methamphetamine, theft (over $500) and driving under the influence of a drug; along with two counts each of possessing methamphetamine utensils, theft (under $500) and breaching a sentence of supervision.

[2] Ms Dickson appeals her sentence. She does not take issue with its length. Her sole contention is that the sentence should have included leave to apply for home detention.

The offending

[3] The 13 offences occurred between December 2015 and May 2017. The burglary occurred in December 2015 when Ms Dickson broke into her neighbour’s house and stole property. Police traced the offending to Ms Dickson through her fingerprints. On 26 February 2016, the police executed a search warrant, finding cannabis seedlings and seeds. That same day, Ms Dickson stole petrol from a station in Green Bay. Another theft of petrol occurred on 4 March 2017, in Mt Eden.

[4] On 15 May 2017, Ms Dickson stole a van that was unattended, along with personal items. She later removed and sold its wheels. The wheels were replaced and when stopped by police in the van on 20 May she failed a compulsory impairment test. She was found to be under the influence of methamphetamine. Just under half a gram of methamphetamine was found in her possession, along with pipes and syringes used for consumption.

[5] Ms Dickson pleaded guilty to all charges.

1 Police v Dickson [2017] NZDC 18886.

Judgment under appeal

[6] Judge Thomas took the charge of burglary as the lead charge and adopted a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment. He then assessed the remainder of the charges together and uplifted the starting point to 24 months’ imprisonment.2

[7] Allowance was made for both aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to Ms Dickson. Judge Thomas took account of Ms Dickson’s previous convictions, and the fact much of the offending had occurred whilst she was on bail as well as when she was sentenced to a non-custodial sentence. This led to the Judge uplifting the starting point to 28 months’ imprisonment.3 The sentence was then reduced to take account of Ms Dickson’s guilty pleas. The Judge found these warranted…

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 Dickson v Police

Details

AGLC: Dickson v Police [2017] NZHC 2815
Case: [2017] NZHC 2815
Decision Date: 16 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Amanda Anne Dickson was sentenced in the Manukau District Court to 21 months’ imprisonment on 13 charges involving dishonesty and drug-related offending. Ms Dickson appeals her sentence, contending that the sentence should have included leave to apply for home detention rather than a solely custodial sentence. Dickson v Police is a sentencing appeal before the High Court of New Zealand. The appellant contends the sentence should have included leave to apply for home detention rather than solely a custodial sentence, arguing that an electronically-monitored sentence would provide flexibility to complete rehabilitative courses, would alleviate concerns with non-compliance and that the Judge failed to consider this alternative sentence. The Crown contends that the first two grounds merely question the merits of the District Court Judge’s decision, and the last ground identifies an error of law. The Court found that the first two grounds do not identify errors of law and merely attempt to re-argue the merits of an alternative sentence. The third ground is that the Judge made an error of law by failing to adequately consider leave to apply for home detention and failing to consider the availability of home detention under the Sentencing Act. The Court found that the Judge did not address the issue of leave to apply for home detention, and therefore, erred in a way that enables this Court to consider the question afresh. The appeal is allowed to the extent leave is granted to Ms Dickson to apply for a sentence of home detention should she find a facility from which it is suitable for her to serve such sentence.

Orders