Dodds v The Queen - [2016] NZHC 3003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-000339 [2016] NZHC 3003

BETWEEN
ETHAN DANE DODDS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 12 December 2016

Counsel:

J W Mackey for Appellant
P J L Arnold for Respondent

Judgment:

12 December 2016

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 12 December 2016 at 4 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
J W Mackey, Auckland.
Meredith Connell, Auckland.

DODDS v THE QUEEN [2016] NZHC 3003 [12 December 2016]

The issue

[1] This is a sentence appeal against a term of three years and five months’ imprisonment in relation to a variety of charges: burglary, injuring with intent to injure, assault with a weapon, assault with intent to rob, unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, and possession of utensils.1 The offences were committed over two incidents, 12 days apart. The primary issue is the availability of the global starting point adopted at first instance.

Background

[2] On 16 March 2016 the appellant went to a motel unit to steal property from its occupant. He did not know the victim, who hid in the bathroom when the appellant knocked on the door. The appellant then knocked on the bathroom window before kicking in the front door pane to gain entry. Once inside, he grabbed a large fan and threw it at the victim. The victim picked up a shard of glass to defend herself and struck out at the appellant, wounding him on the arm. The appellant responded by punching her twice to the face. The appellant then stole the victim’s handbag in which was her passport, international driver’s licence, a Rolex watch, jewellery and other personal items.

[3] The victim suffered facial fractures and swelling and bruising to her left eye. She required surgery for the injury to her hand (sustained when she picked up the piece of glass). I understand her property was not recovered. It was worth almost
$37,000.

[4] The appellant suffered injury to his leg when he kicked in the front door. When found by the Police, he had a methamphetamine pipe on him (the possession of utensils charge).

[5] On 28 March 2016 the appellant went to a superette. He was still on crutches. The appellant asked the store attendant for directions, and when the victim offered to help, the appellant produced a piece of paper and a pocket knife. The
appellant pointed the knife at the victim. He demanded money. The victim began

1 R v Dodds [2016] NZDC 18318.

shouting. The appellant attempted to take the cash register, but abandoned the robbery when the victim picked up a stick. The appellant fled in a waiting car which had been stolen the day before (the unlawfully entering a car charge). He was
17 years old.

[6] Judge Tremewan adopted a starting point of three years for the burglary charge in relation to the motel, which Her Honour uplifted by a year for the other…

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 Queen

Details

AGLC: Dodds v The Queen [2016] NZHC 3003
Case: [2016] NZHC 3003
Decision Date: 12 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Ethan Dane Dodds appealed against his sentence of three years and five months’ imprisonment for multiple offences, including burglary, injuring with intent to injure, assault with a weapon, assault with intent to rob, unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, and possession of utensils. The appeal was heard on 12 December 2016 and judgment was delivered on the same day by Downs J. The primary issue was whether the global starting point of six years imprisonment, adopted at first instance, was appropriate.

Dodds’ counsel argued that the starting point for the offences on 16 March should not have exceeded two years and for the offences on 28 March, the starting point should not have exceeded three years and three months. The Crown argued that the overall starting point of six years was appropriate despite the appellant's submissions. The court considered the nature of the offences, the role of the offender, and the prospects of reform. The court held that the starting point for the offences on 16 March was unassailable, but the starting point for the later offences was too high. The overall starting point should not have exceeded five and a half years imprisonment.

The court also considered the discount afforded to the appellant for his youth, rehabilitative efforts, foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and guilty pleas. The court found no reversible error in the discount afforded for the appellant's youth and rehabilitative efforts. However, the court found that the discount for the appellant's pleas of guilty produced a sentence of three years and one month’s imprisonment, which was more appropriate.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of three years and five months’ imprisonment was quashed. A sentence of three years and one month’s imprisonment was substituted on the charges of burglary, injuring with intent, assault with a weapon and assault with intent to rob. The concurrent terms in relation to the other charges remained unchanged.

Orders