Finlinson v Police - [2016] NZHC 224

NOTE: ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF THE COMPLAINANT REFERRED TO IN THIS JUDGMENT AND OF THE HOME DETENTION ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-409-000131

CRI-2015-409-000129 [2016] NZHC 224

BETWEEN
RYAN THOMAS FINLINSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 16 February 2016

Appearances:

K Paima for the Appellant
C E Martyn for the Respondent

Judgment:

19 February 2016

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] On 1 May 2015, Mr Finlinson went to the home of his ex-partner to collect some personal belongings. (I will refer to Mr Finlinson’s ex-partner as Ms Green, although that is not her real name. For similar reasons, I also do not refer to the name of her horse.) He went there at 10.00 pm and became aware she was in bed with a person previously known to him. A short time later, Mr Finlinson left the address and went to a nearby paddock where he shot Ms Green’s horse. This was a horse she was emotionally attached to. It was also of considerable value to her as a horse which she had worked up since October 2014 to a level where she could compete with it in equestrian events at a national level.

[2] On 17 December 2015, Judge Farish in the District Court sentenced Mr

Finlinson to 28 months’ imprisonment, required him to pay $10,000 in reparation

FINLINSON v POLICE [2016] NZHC 224 [19 February 2016]

and ordered forfeiture of a firearm.1 The sentences were imposed on a charge of intentional damage under the Crimes Act 1961.

[3] Mr Finlinson has appealed against that sentence.

[4] Mr Finlinson had also pleaded guilty to a summary offence charge of assault. When he called at the house, Mr Finlinson wanted the person with Ms Green to leave. As this person was attempting to make his way out of the bedroom and passed Mr Finlinson into the hallway, Mr Finlinson pushed him into the hallway wall. The man was not injured.

The sentencing

[5] Although Mr Finlinson pleaded guilty at an early stage, sentencing was deferred after Judge Farish indicated the Judge who had taken the guilty pleas had not had the opportunity to fully understand the seriousness of the offending. A pre- sentence report dated 18 November 2015 was prepared for a sentencing on 20
November 2015. Judge Farish indicated on 20 November 2015 that a starting point of imprisonment was clearly warranted. A second pre-sentence report dated 9
December 2015 was then prepared for the sentencing which took place on 17

December 2015.

[6] In referring to what happened, Judge Farish said Mr Finlinson had wanted “to cause as much emotional distress to [Ms Green] as you could”. She referred to Mr Finlinson telling the pre-sentence report writers that he recognised the horse had done nothing wrong. She said he had acted “simply out of vengeance for the fact [Ms Green] had decided to end the relationship and you were not happy…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Finlinson v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NZHC 224
Decision Date: 19 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered an appeal against the sentence imposed on Ryan Thomas Finlinson for intentionally damaging his ex-partner's horse using a firearm. The key issues were whether the District Court had erred in sentencing and, if so, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court found that the starting point adopted by the District Court was too high, insufficient credit was given for Finlinson's remorse and acceptance of responsibility, and inadequate recognition was given to his relative youth and good character. The Court quashed the original sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment and replaced it with a sentence of eight months’ home detention. Finlinson was also ordered to pay reparation of $10,000 and the costs of removal of the horse of $201.25, and an order was made for forfeiture of the firearm used in the killing of the horse. Conditions for home detention were set out, including prohibitions on alcohol, illicit substances, and firearms, and a requirement to attend a domestic violence programme.

Orders