Legal Research
Cases
Dodds v Police

Dodds v Police

Case [2020] NZHC 886 4 May 2020

Assault on Police Officer

Community Work

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2020-409-12

[2020] NZHC 886

BETWEEN
HANNAH ALICE DODDS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 28 April 2020

Appearances:

A McKenzie for Appellant (via audio-visual link) S Mallett for Respondent

Judgment:

4 May 2020

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 May 2020 at 3.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: .

DODDS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 886 [4 May 2020]

[1] Ms Hannah Dodds pleaded guilty to charges of threatening to injure, intentional damage, one charge of failing to stop, and two charges of assaulting a police officer. She was sentenced by Judge Garland to 100 hours’ community work and nine months’ supervision. She was also ordered to pay $160 in reparation and disqualified from driving for six months.1

[2] Ms Dodds appeals the sentence on the basis the Judge erred in imposing 100 hours’ community work for the sole purpose of general deterrence. She was not mentally well at the time of her offending and it is argued that this punitive element of her sentence was inappropriate.

Background

Threatening and wilful damage

[3] On the night of 22 January 2019, Ms Dodds messaged her former partner multiple times threatening to “deal to” his new girlfriend, crash into his car, and take his dog unless he “handed over” his new girlfriend. Later Ms Dodds drove to her former partner’s address. She was observed approaching the front door and when it was closed to prevent her gaining entry Ms Dodds became aggressive. She ran towards the door, yelling that she would hurt the victim. She repeatedly yanked at the door in an attempt to open it before punching through and breaking the glass door.

Assault on police and failing to stop

[4] On 21 April, whilst on bail for the previous offending, Ms Dodds was stopped in her vehicle. The police believed she was suicidal and sought to detain her under the Mental Health Act 1992. Ms Dodds reacted by reversing her vehicle into a police officer, striking him in the knee before then accelerating away. The officer suffered soreness, bruising to his knee and back problems which have taken some time to resolve.

[5] When the police caught up with Ms Dodds they activated their lights and sirens in an effort to stop her. However, she continued on before abandoning her vehicle and

1 Police v Dodds [2020] NZDC 2238.

fled into bush at a nearby park. Another police officer located Ms Dodds and advised her she was under arrest. She reacted by striking this officer on the side of the head and resisted being handcuffed by kicking and struggling. The officer was left dazed and suffered from a headache that caused her to vomit.

District Court decision

[6] In sentencing Ms Dodds, Judge Garland acknowledged that her ability to live safely in the community had largely been…

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 Dodds v Police

Details

AGLC: Dodds v Police [2020] NZHC 886
Case: [2020] NZHC 886
Decision Date: 4 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Hannah Dodds appealed against her sentence for threatening to injure, intentional damage, failing to stop, and assaulting a police officer. The District Court sentenced her to 100 hours of community work, nine months of supervision, a $160 reparation payment, and disqualified her from driving for six months. The appeal was heard on 28 April 2020, with Ms Dodds represented by A McKenzie and the Respondent by S Mallett. The Court delivered its judgment on 4 May 2020.

The central issue was whether the Judge erred in imposing 100 hours of community work for the sole purpose of general deterrence. Ms Dodds was not mentally well at the time of her offending, and it was argued that this punitive element of her sentence was inappropriate. The District Court had acknowledged that Ms Dodds' ability to live safely in the community had been compromised by her poor mental health and other medical issues, and that her drug use was an additional burden. However, the Judge rejected the submission that supervision alone would be adequate, noting that the assaults on police officers were a matter of concern for the community and should be met with a stern response to deter others.

The Court noted that there is no tariff for the offence of assault on a police officer, but anything more serious than minor assaults can often result in a short term of imprisonment. The injuries sustained by the two police officers were not serious, but neither should they be considered minor. Ms Dodds' violent conduct towards the police officers represented a continuation of her prior conduct towards her former partner and his female associate. However, Ms Dodds suffers from poor mental health. The Court was entitled to take into account her previous conviction for assault. Ms Dodds’ deteriorating mental health was the central reason for the police’s intervention and their efforts to detain her at the time the assaults occurred. That must bear on her level of culpability and brings into question the relevance of deterrence.

The Court held that the 100 hours of community work represented an appropriately calibrated response. Even though there was an error in the approach taken by the District Court, in the absence of convincing the Court that a different sentence should be imposed, the appeal would not succeed. The Court was satisfied that appropriate allowance had been made for Ms Dodds’ extenuating personal circumstances and that the sentence reflected the allowance to be made for her mental health difficulties.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders