Ford v Police - [2024] NZHC 873

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2024-419-12

[2024] NZHC 873

BETWEEN
TUA WONDI FORD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 11 April 2024

Appearances:

T Walsh for the Appellant

L Glaser for the Respondent

Judgment:

11 April 2024

Reissued:

7 May 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

[As to appeal against sentence]

Solicitors/Counsel:
Hamilton Legal, Hamilton
G Walsh, Barrister, Hamilton

FORD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC [873] [11 April 2024]

The appeal

[1] Tua Ford pleaded guilty to three family violence-related charges, all involving the same victim. There was a charge of assault on a person in a family relationship.1 Then later in the same day, another charge of assault on a person in a family relationship,2 and a charge of indecent assault.3

[2] Mr Ford appeals against the end sentence of two years three months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge AIM Tompkins in the Hamilton District Court on 27 February 2024.

[3] The grounds for the appeal, succinctly and persuasively advanced by Mr Walsh are two-fold:

(a)firstly, that the Judge’s starting point was too high, which has consequently led to an end sentence that is manifestly excessive; and

(b)secondly, that there was insufficient allowance for Mr Ford’s guilty plea.

Facts

[4] The facts reveal a nasty set of incidents. Mr Ford has been in an “on-and-off again”, and sometimes volatile, relationship with the victim [REDACTED]. The couple have [REDACTED] children. He has been violent towards the victim previously.

[5]At the time of this incident, they lived apart [REDACTED].

[6] After falling asleep one Saturday evening, the victim, who was alone at her home address, was awoken at about 3.00 am the next morning when Mr Ford walked into her bedroom. He tried to hug her and attempted to take off her pants by pulling

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 194A; maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 194A; maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 135; maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

them down from her waist. The victim repeated that he was to “get out” as she was tired and she “did not want to”. Mr Ford then grabbed the victim’s trousers with both hands and pulled all three of her pants down exposing her underwear. His intentions were plain.

[7] Angered by her response, Mr Ford grabbed the victim by the leg, pulled her off the bed and onto the floor, standing over her. He then hit her hard to the face with an open hand and full force. I have seen pictures of the victim’s mouth and gum and there is a significant internal laceration.

[8] The victim got to her feet and Mr Ford punched her in the arms, stomach, and thigh with a closed fist—using a “right-left, right-left” punching combination. Mr Ford then followed the victim, picked her up…

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 Ford v Police

Details

AGLC: Ford v Police [2024] NZHC 873
Case: [2024] NZHC 873
Decision Date: 11 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tua Ford appeals against the two-year-three-month sentence imposed by the District Court for multiple family violence-related offences. The appeal argues that the starting point for the sentence was too high and that insufficient credit was given for his guilty plea. The facts of the case involve repeated violent incidents against the same victim, including assault and indecent assault, with Mr Ford having a history of similar offences. The District Court applied a starting point of 24 months for the assault charges, reduced by 12.5% for the guilty plea, and added six months for the indecent assault charge, resulting in a total sentence of 27 months.

The High Court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or involved an error in law or principle. While acknowledging that the District Court's sentence construction had some issues, such as not applying the guilty plea discount to the indecent assault charge and not clearly factoring in previous convictions, the Court concluded that the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court adjusted the starting point for the assault charges to 18 months, applied a 15% discount for the guilty plea, and added six months for the previous convictions and offending while on bail, resulting in an end sentence of 26 months. This sentence was deemed appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was stern but within the range available to the District Court and not manifestly excessive. The Court emphasised the unacceptable nature of violence in intimate family relationships and the need for strong deterrent sentences.

Orders