Doidge v Police - [2021] NZHC 2256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-409-000067

[2021] NZHC 2256

BETWEEN
JORDAN MARK DOIDGE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 26 August 2021 (via VMR)

Appearances:

K Basire for Defendant

S M H McManus for Respondent

Judgment:

30 August 2021

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

This judgment was delivered by me on ………………… at pursuant to Rule 11.5

of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Introduction

[1] Jordan Doidge was sentenced to two years and four and a half months’ imprisonment by Judge Couch on 18 May 2021 on four charges of stealing motor vehicles1 and three charges of receiving stolen motor vehicles.2 Four hundred dollars’ reparation was also ordered.

[2] Mr Doidge appeals that sentence. He contends that the sentence is manifestly excessive and that he should have been sentenced to home detention.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(b): maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act, ss 246 and 247(1): maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

DOIDGE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2256 [30 August 2021]

Facts

[3] Around 15 December 2019, the first victim listed his Toyota Surf on Trade Me. On 29 December Mr Doidge contacted the first victim inquiring about the vehicle. The first victim mentioned he would be on holiday from 31 December until mid- January. On 30 December Mr Doidge went to the first victim’s house ostensibly to test drive the vehicle. While test driving, he stopped at an associate’s address where they removed the driver’s door lock to obtain the vehicle key code. This e abled them to have a key cut for the vehicle Between 31 December 2019 and 1 January 2020, Mr Doidge used the key to enter and start the vehicle. He drove away. This comprised the first theft charge.

[4] This vehicle was “rebirthed” to a different registration under the name of Mr Doidge’s partner. It was used as a personal vehicle for about nine months. To “rebirth” a vehicle is to change its identity into that of another. The rebirthing process involves the removal of the VIN and manufacturer’s plates as well as having the stamped chassis on the vehicle frame cut out. Once removed, these identifying features are attached to a second vehicle.

[5] Police enquiries revealed the Toyota Surf vehicle was sold for $7,200 around 25 September 2020. The vehicle was recovered, and Mr Doidge returned the sale proceeds to the dispossessed new owner.

[6] The second count of theft occurred between 15 and 16 July 2020. Mr Doidge used a Mazda key to jig the lock of a Mazda Bounty Ute. He entered the vehicle and used the same jigging technique to start and drive the vehicle away. An associate, Caleb Goodwin, was present. Together they dumped the vehicle in a paddock. They received a cash reward for the theft. The Ute was valued at approximately $10,000 and has not been recovered by police.

[7] The third count…

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 2256
Case: [2021] NZHC 2256
Decision Date: 30 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Doidge, the appellant, appealed against his sentence of two years and four and a half months' imprisonment on charges of stealing motor vehicles and receiving stolen motor vehicles. The District Court found the appellant's offending to be premeditated and sophisticated, with a significant breach of trust in the first theft. The starting point of three years and two months' imprisonment was adopted, with a 20 per cent discount for the guilty plea and a five per cent discount for remorse. The appeal court found the starting point to be appropriate, but the appellant could have received a full 25 per cent discount for his guilty plea. The appellant's cultural background justified an eight per cent discount, and his assistance to authorities warranted a two per cent discount. The appellant's sentence was manifestly excessive, and therefore the appeal was allowed. The sentence imposed in the District Court was quashed, and an electronically monitored sentence of 11 months' home detention was substituted in its place. The appellant was to undertake and complete psychological treatment as a special condition of the sentence.

Orders