Goldsworthy v Police - [2016] NZHC 1973

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2016-485-41 [2016] NZHC 1973

BETWEEN
JASON PETER GOLDSWORTHY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 23 August 2016

Counsel:

V C Nisbet for Appellant
R Georgiou for Respondent

Judgment:

23 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Goldsworthy was sentenced on 20 May 2016 to two years and one

month’s imprisonment on the following charges, to which he had pleaded guilty:

(a) taking a document for pecuniary advantage (Crimes Act s 228(1)(a)); (b) theft (Crimes Act s 223(d));
(c) attempting to use a document for pecuniary advantage (Crimes Act s 28(1)(b)); and

(d)using a document for pecuniary advantage x2 (Crimes Act s 228(1)(b)).

[2] At the same time, his sentence of home detention on unrelated dishonesty

charges was replaced with nine months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently.

GOLDSWORTHY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 1973 [23 August 2016]

[3] He appeals on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and in particular that there was no discount for the early guilty pleas.

Facts

[4] Mr Goldsworthy made contact with the victim of this offending through social media, and arranged to stay on his farm property. He arrived at the property on Tuesday 21 July. During the day, the victim left the house to work on the farm, leaving Mr Goldsworthy alone. At some point during his stay, Mr Goldsworthy located two cheque books, and removed two cheques from each of them, then put the cheque books back. He also took $481 in cash from a travel bag.

[5] On the morning of 23 July, Mr Goldsworthy located the victim’s credit card, and attempted to use it to access a website to the value of $15. The victim received a call from his bank alerting him that his card was being used. The victim returned home and confronted Mr Goldsworthy, who admitted taking the card and apologised. The victim then discovered that his travel bag had been searched, and confronted Mr Goldsworthy about taking the money. This was denied.

[6] The victim told Mr Goldsworthy to leave and took him to Gore. He returned home, and discovered that two of the cheques were missing. He called his bank and cancelled the cheques. Mr Goldsworthy presented the other two cheques to obtain funds that he deposited into his own account, on 23 and 27 July. The amounts were
$447.80 and $457 respectively.

District Court decision

[7] Mr Goldsworthy preferred to be sentenced on the spot, as it were, and so declined an adjournment for a further sentencing report. He was represented by the duty solicitor. Judge Tomkins’ sentencing notes cover Mr Goldsworthy’s background in some detail but are very brief on the sentencing calculation itself. He noted the following:

(a) Mr Goldsworthy had been sentenced to home detention on 29 October

2015 on a range of fraud charges, and had served about half that

sentence. He had removed the electronic monitoring equipment and failed to return to his detention address;

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 Goldsworthy 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 1973
Decision Date: 23 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Goldsworthy v Police, the appellant, Jason Peter Goldsworthy, appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court. The appellant was sentenced to two years and one month’s imprisonment on various charges, including taking a document for pecuniary advantage and theft. The appeal was based on the contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive and did not appropriately account for the appellant's early guilty pleas.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the district court appropriately considered the appellant's early guilty pleas in determining the sentence. The court examined the nature and extent of the premeditation, the multiplicity of the offending, the breach of trust, and the appellant’s criminal history to determine an appropriate starting point for the sentencing calculation. Additionally, the court considered whether the appellant's guilty pleas warranted a discount in the sentence.

The High Court held that the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive. The court noted that while the premeditation, multiplicity of the offending, and breach of trust were relevant factors, they did not justify a starting point as high as 20 months. Instead, the court found that a starting point of 12 months was more appropriate. The court further considered the appellant's significant criminal history, warranting an uplift of six months. However, the court also acknowledged the appellant's early guilty pleas, which warranted a 25% discount, bringing the appropriate sentence to 13½ months. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the original sentence was quashed, and a sentence of 13½ months’ imprisonment was substituted.

In conclusion, the court quashed the original sentence and substituted a sentence of 13½ months’ imprisonment, finding that the original sentence was manifestly excessive and did not appropriately account for the appellant's early guilty pleas.

Orders