Legal Research
Cases
Fifield v Police

Fifield v Police

Case [2024] NZHC 1453 5 June 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2024-454-000006

[2024] NZHC 1453

BETWEEN
BRUCE PATRICK FIFIELD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 22 May 2024 (via VMR)

Counsel:

A L Chen for Appellant

G L Duncan for Respondent

Judgment:

5 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

Introduction

[1] Mr Fifield appeals against a sentence of two years and seven months’ imprisonment imposed on two charges of burglary,1 one charge of receiving,2 two charges of driving while disqualified,3 one charge of carelessly using a vehicle,4 and one charge of failing to stop.5

[2] I have concluded the appeal should be dismissed because the sentence was not manifestly excessive. Although the uplifts for the charges of receiving and driving

1      Police v Fifield [2024] NZDC 3362 [District Court decision]; Crimes Act 1961, ss 231(1)(a) and 66(2); maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Sections 246 and 247(a); maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment (property valued at over
$1,000).
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a); maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a $4,500 fine and mandatory disqualification for six months or more.
4      Section 37(1); maximum penalty $3,000 fine.
5      Sections 52A(1)(b), 52A(4) and 52A(6); maximum penalty of a $10,000 fine and mandatory disqualification of between one and two years.

FIFIELD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 1453 [5 June 2024]

while disqualified were stern, the end sentence was within range as the starting point for the burglaries was lenient and the uplift for previous offending could have been greater.

What happened?

The offending

[3] On 22 March 2023, Mr Fifield, aged 36, was stopped by police in a routine traffic stop. When police told him that his vehicle would be impounded because he was disqualified from driving, Mr Fifield drove away.

[4] On 8 May 2023, Mr Fifield was a party to the burglary of several vehicles worth over $100,000. Three people, not including Mr Fifield, used an angle grinder to cut through the steel front gates of a motor vehicle dealership storage yard. They left after suspicions were raised but returned soon after and shifted the vehicles around to clear a path for the higher value vehicles to be taken off the premises.

[5] At about noon, Mr Fifield was asked to assist towing vehicles from the yard. He drove into the dealership and connected a white Mitsubishi to the car he had arrived in. Mr Fifield sat in the driver’s seat of the Mitsubishi, steering it while his associate towed it out of the yard to a nearby address. He returned to the dealership with his associate and prepared to connect another car to his own, intending to tow it from the building. He was prevented from doing so by the victim, who blocked him and his associate from leaving in their car. Mr Fifield’s associate, who was driving, rammed the victim’s car so they could escape. After this was unsuccessful, they ran from the…

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 Fifield v Police

Details

AGLC: Fifield v Police [2024] NZHC 1453
Case: [2024] NZHC 1453
Decision Date: 5 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bruce Patrick Fifield has appealed against the sentence of two years and seven months' imprisonment imposed on him for multiple charges, including burglary, receiving stolen property, and driving while disqualified. The appeal was heard by La Hood J in the High Court of New Zealand. The legal issues before the court were whether the starting point and uplifts for the charges were correctly calculated and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court examined the arguments submitted by the appellant's counsel, who claimed the sentence was excessive, particularly regarding the starting point for the burglary charges and the uplifts for the additional charges. The court found that while the uplifts for receiving and driving while disqualified were stern, the starting point for the burglaries was generous and the uplift for previous convictions could have been greater. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that a sentence appeal requires a material error leading to a manifestly excessive sentence. The court considered the totality principle, which requires the total period of imprisonment not to be disproportionate to the gravity of the offending. The court found no material error in the Judge's methodology and noted that the sentence was within the appropriate range given the appellant's extensive criminal history and the seriousness of the offending. The court also noted that the Judge's decision to not credit for remorse or potential rehabilitation was not an error, as there was no genuine remorse shown and the pre-sentence report did not indicate realistic chances of rehabilitation.

Orders