Goodall v Police - [2016] NZHC 2440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-409-000100 [2016] NZHC 2440

BETWEEN
DEAN GOODALL

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

CRI-2016-409-000101

BETWEEN DEAN GOODALL Appellant

ANDDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Hearing: 11 October 2016

Appearances:

K J Beaton for Appellant
E J Henderson and M Zarifeh for Respondents

Judgment:

13 October 2016

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

GOODALL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2440 [13 October 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Goodall the appellant appeals against a sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Couch in the District Court at Christchurch on 2 September 2016. The list of charges for which the appellant was sentenced is extensive, but can briefly be categorised into three sets:

(a) Rotorua charges (the first set of charges): (i) theft of a motor vehicle
(ii) obtaining by deception

(b)Charges for resentencing (the second set of charges): (i) three counts of breaches of parole
(ii) wilful damage

(iii) driving with excess breath alcohol; and

(iv) disorderly behaviour

(c) New Blenheim charges (the third set of charges) (i) breach of community detention
(ii) breach of intensive supervision

Background

[2] The facts relating to the first set, the Rotorua charges, were succinctly summarised by Judge Couch during sentencing. His Honour observed that:1

On 24 March this year [the appellant] went to a car dealer in Rotorua. [The appellant] agreed to buy a Holden car for $24,000. [The appellant] were

1 New Zealand Police v Goodall [2016] NZDC 17124 at [2].

given the use of a Subaru courtesy car until that purchase price was paid. The value of the Subaru was some $8000. The purchase price was never paid but by mistake the dealer thought it had been paid and delivered the Holden car to [the appellant]. [The appellant] then sold both cars. The Subaru was recovered. Because of the circumstances of sale, title to the Holden had legally passed to the purchaser and it was not recoverable, notwithstanding you had never paid for it. That led to the charges of theft of the Subaru motor vehicle and obtaining the Holden motor vehicle by deception.

[3] The second and third set of charges originally related to sentencing this year at the District Court in Blenheim. Previously the appellant had been sentenced to four months’ community detention and 12 months’ intensive supervision on a number of charges including driving with excess breath alcohol and three charges of breach of release conditions. Then, on 13 July 2016, the appellant breached his community detention by cutting off the monitoring bracelet and failing to return to the detention address. Community Probation therefore applied for both sentences to be cancelled and the appellant is now to be re-sentenced on these charges.

[4] As the sentencing and this appeal however was primarily focused on the charges of theft and obtaining by deception of the two motor vehicles, the second and third sets of charges are of more limited relevance before me here. I will therefore deal principally in this appeal with…

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 Goodall v Police

Details

AGLC: Goodall v Police [2016] NZHC 2440
Case: [2016] NZHC 2440
Decision Date: 13 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Dean Goodall appealed against a sentence of two years and two months' imprisonment imposed by the District Court in Christchurch. The appeal was heard on 11 October 2016 and the judgment was delivered by Gendall J on 13 October 2016. The appeal focused primarily on the Rotorua charges, which involved the theft of a Subaru motor vehicle and obtaining a Holden motor vehicle by deception. The appellant argued that the two-year starting point for the imprisonment sentence was too high and that insufficient credit was given for his remorse and desire to make amends.

The court examined whether the starting point of two years' imprisonment was appropriate, considering the appellant's significant criminal history and the nature of the offending. The court found that the starting point was justified given the circumstances and the appellant's culpability. The court also considered the appellant's remorse and offers to make amends, but found that there was insufficient genuine remorse and insight into his offending. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed and the original sentence of two years and two months' imprisonment was upheld.

Orders