Doidge v Police - [2021] NZHC 3195

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-409-000067

[2021] NZHC 3195

BETWEEN
JORDAN MARK DOIDGE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Memoranda
K Basire for Appellant

S M H McManus for Respondent

Judgment:

26 November 2021

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 November 2021 at …. pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

DOIDGE v NZ POLICE [2021] NZHC 3195 [26 November 2021]

Introduction

[1] In a judgment I gave on 30 August 2021 (the appeal judgment)1 I allowed the appeal of the appellant Mr Doidge against a two years four and a half months imprisonment sentence imposed on him in the District Court on 4 charges of stealing motor vehicles and three charges of receiving stolen motor vehicles. In that decision I quashed the District Court’s sentence and imposed an electronically monitored sentence of 11 months’ home detention on certain conditions.

[2] Counsel for the appellant has now filed memoranda dated 23 September 2021 and 16 November 2021 relating to the appeal judgment. Counsel for the respondent has filed a memorandum in response dated 15 November 2021.

[3] The upshot of the memoranda filed by counsel for the appellant involves the contention that there was an arithmetical error in the 11 months’ home detention sentence ordered in the appeal judgment. The error occurred in that I had allowed no credit for the period of 15 weeks from 18 May 2021 to 30 August 2021, leading up to his sentencing and appeal, during which the appellant had been in custody. The appellant’s position is that this 15 week period represents time spent serving his sentence and this Court is required to take it into account on appeal when the outcome (as it was) is conversion of the original sentence of imprisonment to one of home detention.

[4] This is opposed by the respondent. In the memorandum in response filed by counsel for the respondent, it is suggested that the appellant’s present request amounts effectively to a second appeal and as such it is an appeal which should be filed in the Court of Appeal. Accordingly the respondent maintains there is no jurisdiction for this Court to now reconsider credits that might have been available to Mr Doidge in his ultimate end sentence, and my earlier decision in the appeal judgment should simply remain.

1 Doidge v New Zealand Police [2021] NZHC 2256.

Jurisdiction issue

[5] Turning first to the jurisdiction issue raised by Ms McManus for the Crown, she notes initially that appeals to the High Court are governed by both the High Court Rules 2016 and the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. She goes on to contend that amending Mr Doidge’s home detention sentence now to account for time spent in custody is simply a second appeal and is one that should be filed in the Court of Appeal. For reasons that I outline below, I disagree.

[6] Turning now to the High Court Rules, as…

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 Doidge v Police

Details

AGLC: Doidge v Police [2021] NZHC 3195
Case: [2021] NZHC 3195
Decision Date: 26 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with an appeal from Jordan Mark Doidge, the appellant, against a sentence imposed by the District Court. Doidge appealed against his sentence of two years four and a half months imprisonment for charges of stealing motor vehicles and receiving stolen motor vehicles. The original appeal was allowed, resulting in a sentence of 11 months' home detention with electronic monitoring. The current case involves a further appeal by Doidge, who argues that there was an arithmetical error in the appeal judgment that failed to account for the 15 weeks he spent in custody before sentencing. The New Zealand Police, the respondent, opposed this claim.

The legal issues in this case were whether the High Court had jurisdiction to correct the appellant's sentence and, if so, what the correct deduction for time spent in custody should be. The court considered the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction to correct the sentence under section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Criminal Procedure Rules, or by using its inherent jurisdiction. Regarding the appropriate deduction for time spent in custody, the court decided that full credit should be given, and that the correct deduction should be double the period of time the appellant spent in custody, amounting to seven months. Therefore, the final home detention sentence should be 7.9 months rather than 11 months.

The High Court recalled the appeal judgment and reissued it with a corrected paragraph, replacing the 11-month home detention sentence with a 7.9-month home detention sentence, taking into account the time spent in custody. The reissued judgment was otherwise unchanged.

Orders