Fortune v The Queen - [2014] NZCA 319

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA383/2013
[2014] NZCA 319

BETWEEN	CHAD FORTUNE Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	7 July 2014
Court:	Wild, Ronald Young and Cooper JJ
Counsel:	G A Walsh for Applicant BCL Charmley for Respondent
Judgment:	14 July 2014 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application to extend time for filing of appeal against sentence is refused.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ronald Young J)

Introduction

In the mid‑afternoon of 27 May 2011 a man was walking home from work in Hamilton. He was attacked by two others, one of whom was the applicant. The victim was punched and kicked. The applicant pleaded guilty to injuring with intent to injure and theft arising from this incident.
On 23 August 2012 Mr Fortune was sentenced to two years and one month’s imprisonment by Judge Tompkins in the Hamilton District Court.[1] He now seeks leave to appeal the sentence given. His appeal was filed in June 2013. He says the sentence was manifestly excessive.
[1]R v Fortune DC Hamilton CRI-2011-019-3994, 23 August 2012.
Mr Walsh sought an adjournment of the appeal. He advised he had only received late instructions to appear. We refused the adjournment. This appeal has already been substantially delayed and Mr Fortune’s final sentence date is now well passed (26 June 2013).
Mr Walsh was able to identify a number of points in support of the appeal.
As to the applicant’s application to extend time to file the appeal, the appeal was originally mistakenly filed in the High Court in February 2013 (although it was by then out of time). The appeal was filed in this court in June 2013. Shortly afterwards, then counsel for Mr Fortune (not Mr Walsh) advised that he was instructed to abandon the appeal. The appeal was then adjourned to allow a notice of abandonment to be filed but counsel was not able to obtain further instructions from Mr Fortune.
Counsel who filed the original appeal also filed a memorandum in support of the application to extend time for filing the appeal. In that memorandum counsel advised that the original appeal was by error filed in the High Court on 5 February 2013. The sentencing date was 23 August 2012 and so the attempt at filing an appeal was by that stage approximately four months out of time. There were then apparently further delays by Mr Fortune who did not sign and return a further notice of appeal for some six weeks and then a further unexplained delay of five weeks until the appeal was ultimately filed in this Court in June 2013.
We are satisfied the application to extend time to file the appeal should not be granted. No satisfactory explanation is given for the delay and we consider there is no merit in the appeal. Further, Mr Fortune has now served his sentence.
As to the merits of the proposed appeal, this was an unprovoked attack by two men on one.…

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 Fortune v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Fortune v The Queen [2014] NZCA 319
Case: [2014] NZCA 319
Decision Date: 14 July 2014 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal of Fortune v The Queen, the applicant, Chad Fortune, sought leave to appeal his sentence imposed by the Hamilton District Court for injuring with intent to injure and theft. The applicant had pleaded guilty to these charges stemming from an unprovoked attack on a man in Hamilton on 27 May 2011. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand, comprising Wild, Ronald Young, and Cooper JJ, heard the application on 7 July 2014, and judgment was delivered on 14 July 2014. The Court was required to determine whether the applicant's appeal against the sentence was within the allowable timeframe and if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the Court involved whether the application to extend time for filing the appeal was justified and if the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant's appeal was initially filed in the High Court on 5 February 2013, which was out of time, and subsequently filed in the Court of Appeal on 21 June 2013. The Court of Appeal found that the application to extend time to file the appeal should not be granted due to the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay and the absence of merit in the appeal. Additionally, the Court considered the merits of the proposed appeal, examining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court found that the sentence of two years and one month's imprisonment was appropriate, given the unprovoked nature of the attack and the applicant's criminal history.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the start sentence was well within the range suggested by the relevant authority, R v Harris, considering the applicant's previous convictions for violence and the fact that he was on bail at the time of the offence. The Court also found that the deduction for the applicant's guilty plea was modest but not outside the range available. The Court further noted that there was no evidence of remorse on the part of the applicant, who had attempted to shift the blame for the assault to his co-offender and the victim. The final sentence imposed by the District Court was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. Therefore, the application to extend time to file the appeal was refused.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the application to extend time for filing the appeal against sentence is refused.

Orders