Dodds v The King - [2024] NZCA 362

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA246/2024
[2024] NZCA 362

BETWEEN	DONNA MAY DODDS Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	24 June 2024
Court:	Ellis, van Bohemen and Hinton JJ
Counsel:	G D Burns and M J Taylor-Cyphers for Appellant B D Tantrum and C R Purdon for Respondent
Judgment:	1 August 2024 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Hinton J)

Donna Dodds pleaded guilty to one charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice. On 19 April 2024, she was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment by Lang J in the Auckland High Court.[1]
[1]R v Dodds [2024] NZHC 871 [judgment under appeal].
Ms Dodds appeals her sentence on the basis that the Judge erred by not commuting the sentence to one of home detention.
The Crown opposes the appeal. It submits that the sentence of imprisonment was appropriate and consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing as set out in the Sentencing Act 2002.

Offending

On 3 June 2022, Benjamin McIntosh was shot, and he died as a result of his injuries. Ms Dodds’ son, Ethan, was a suspect.
On 6 June 2022, police executed a search warrant of Ms Dodds’ address. She provided police with a formal written statement in which she stated that she, with Ethan and another son, left Auckland on the evening of 2 June 2022, returning home on 4 June 2022. However, security footage subsequently obtained by police revealed that Ms Dodds and her sons left their address together on the morning of 3 June 2022 — after Mr McIntosh was shot and one minute after Ethan had returned to their address. Further, through counsel, Ms Dodds acknowledges that she knew of the likely charge against Ethan by the time of her statement on 6 June 2022.
On 9 June 2022, Ethan was arrested and charged with the murder of Mr McIntosh. Following a jury trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 12 years’ imprisonment.[2]
[2]R v Dodds [2024] NZHC 1419.
On about 28 June 2022, Ms Dodds was charged with wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Sentencing

On 20 February 2024, Lang J provided Ms Dodds with a sentence indication of 18 months’ imprisonment.[3] He said:
[17] The end sentence obviously means that a sentence short of imprisonment is available. Mr Burns asks me to indicate that a sentence of home detention may be appropriate. I am not prepared to do that given the fact that Ms Dodds has a previous conviction for very similar offending. Whether or not a sentence of home detention is appropriate will largely depend on the material available at sentencing. I therefore propose to make no comment at this stage regarding the appropriateness of such a sentence.
[3]R v Dodds [2024] NZHC 241.
The indication was accepted by Ms Dodds.

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Dodds v The King [2024] NZCA 362
Case: [2024] NZCA 362
Decision Date: 1 August 2024 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Donna May Dodds appealed against her sentence for attempting to pervert the course of justice. She was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment by Lang J in the Auckland High Court, and she argued that the sentence should have been home detention instead. The Crown opposed the appeal, asserting that the sentence was appropriate and consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing. The appeal court considered whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and found that it was not. The court found that the purposes of denunciation and deterrence were primary considerations for the offence, and that the sentence of imprisonment was necessary to achieve these goals. The court also noted that Ms Dodds' previous offending and lack of willingness to engage with rehabilitative measures did not countervail the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and personal accountability. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of imprisonment was upheld.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the sentence of imprisonment be upheld. The Court found that the sentence imposed by the Judge was not manifestly excessive and was the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances. The Court also found that the purposes of denunciation and deterrence were primary considerations for the offence, and that the sentence of imprisonment was necessary to achieve these goals. The Court noted that Ms Dodds' previous offending and lack of willingness to engage with rehabilitative measures did not countervail the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and personal accountability.

Orders