Dobbs v Police - [2012] NZHC 3136

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2012-470-41 [2012] NZHC 3136

BETWEEN RENNEL RICHARD DOBBS Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 22 November 2012

Counsel: OJ Brittain for Appellant
HJ Sheridan for Respondent

Judgment: 22 November 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT OF RODNEY HANSEN J

Solicitors: Public Defenders Service, 60 Durham Street, Tauranga for Appellant
(Email: Olivia.brittain@justice.govt.nz )
Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, P O Box 13063, Tauranga for Respondent
(Email: h.sheridan@rhji.co.nz )

RENNEL RICHARD DOBBS V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC TAU CRI-2012-470-41 [22 November 2012]

Introduction

[1] Mr Dobbs pleaded guilty in the District Court at Tauranga to charges of theft, male assaults female and burglary. He was sentenced by Judge Wolff to nine months imprisonment on the charge of theft and two months imprisonment (to be served concurrently), on the remaining two charges. He was convicted and discharged on a charge of failing to answer bail.

[2] He appeals against the sentences of imprisonment. He says that a community-based sentence should have been imposed.

The facts

Theft

[3] On 18 January 2012, Mr Dobbs was the driver of a car in a supermarket carpark at Henderson in Auckland. His co-offender, Richard Ropiha, was a front seat passenger. Mr Dobbs drove the car close to a woman who was walking back to her car with her handbag over her shoulder. Mr Ropiha leaned out the front passenger window and ripped the handbag from the woman. The bag contained
$500 in cash and bankcards. The victim suffered a sore right shoulder.

Male assaults female

[4] On 12 February 2012, Mr Dobbs went to the home of his cousin, Krystle Manning, in Mt Wellington, Auckland. She was in the bedroom with her partner. Mr Dobbs walked in the open front door carrying a hammer. When Ms Manning came out of the bedroom to see who was there, he shouted at her regarding money alleged to be owed to another. When she told him to “fuck off”, he punched her in the face. She suffered a cut and swollen lip.

Burglary

[5] On 7 August 2012, Mr Dobbs was living in a residential street in Tauranga. He entered a vacant neighbouring house by climbing through the front window. He removed six dining room chairs valued at $600 and took them back to his home. The police were called by an eye witness. Mr Dobbs admitted to taking the chairs from the house, claiming he had purchased them for $300 the previous evening. That explanation is untrue. The chairs were recovered and returned to the owner.

Sentencing decision

[6] In sentencing Mr Dobbs, Judge Wolff rejected a plea that the theft was a spur of the moment offence. He said it was clearly something that was discussed and contemplated before the event. He noted that Mr Dobbs and his co-offender had originally been charged with robbery and expressed puzzlement as to why the charge had been reduced to one of theft. He referred to the “dramatic” consequences for the victim. Judge Wolff noted that Mr…

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 Dobbs v Police

Details

AGLC: Dobbs v Police [2012] NZHC 3136
Case: [2012] NZHC 3136
Decision Date: 22 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal from the appellant, Rennel Richard Dobbs, against his imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge Wolff in the District Court at Tauranga. Mr Dobbs had pleaded guilty to charges of theft, male assaults female, and burglary. He sought a community-based sentence instead of the imprisonment terms imposed. The central issue for the court was whether the District Court Judge erred in not considering a community-based sentence and if the appellant's imprisonment sentence should be commuted to home detention.

The Court considered the purposes of sentencing and the principles outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. While acknowledging that a sentence of imprisonment might not be the most rehabilitative option, the Court held that it was appropriate in this case due to the seriousness of the offending. The Court examined the factors both for and against home detention, including the appellant's previous employment history, participation in a violence prevention program, and the concerns about his current living situation. Despite the appellant's expressions of remorse and desire for change, the Court concluded that the current environment would not be conducive to effective rehabilitation. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence.

The Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, and the original sentence of imprisonment remain in place.

Orders