Goodwin v Police - [2021] NZHC 1526

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2021-443-000024

[2021] NZHC 1526

BETWEEN
CONNOR JAMES GOODWIN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 15 June 2021

Appearances:

N Bourke for the Appellant G Milne for the Respondent

Judgment:

24 June 2021

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(on sentence appeal)

Overview

[1] Mr Connor Goodwin appeals his sentence of six months’ imprisonment for two charges:1 possessing an offensive weapon2 and assault with intent to injure.3

[2]Mr Goodwin’s appeal falls into two main grounds:

(a)that the Judge erred in assessing the appropriateness of the proposed address for home detention, taking into account extraneous information relating to his partner; and

1      NZ Police v Goodwin [2021] NZDC 10509.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(b): maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 193: maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.

CONNOR JAMES GOODWIN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 1526 [24 June 2021]

(b)that the Judge failed to adequately consider and assess whether alternative non-custodial sentences were appropriate.

[3] The central issue is whether I should quash the sentence of imprisonment and, if so, what sentence should be imposed.

Background

[4] Just after midnight and following a day of heavy drinking, on 1 January this year, the victim arrived at an address to see his sister. Mr Goodwin had been asleep but woke when the victim knocked on the windows and door. When Mr Goodwin confronted the victim, he pushed him against a sink and punched him in the face and head between 10 to 20 times. The victim was unsuccessful in trying to throw Mr Goodwin off. Mr Goodwin’s partner came between the two and separated them, getting Mr Goodwin into the bedroom.

[5] Mr Bourke’s submissions state that Mr Goodwin had mistaken the victim for an intruder. This was not recorded in the summary of facts, which states no explanation was offered for the offending.

[6] As the victim left, Mr Goodwin ran out of the address, holding a knife and shouting he was going to stab him. When the victim was in his car, Mr Goodwin further threatened him.

[7] Mr Goodwin has accepted these facts and pleaded guilty. I therefore proceed on the basis of the summary of facts.

District Court Decision

[8] The Judge had sentenced Mr Goodwin to 18 months’ intensive supervision just six weeks before the present offending, for common assault and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. The Judge had placed Mr Goodwin under judicial monitoring but subsequently noted “you have not been doing well”.

[9] The Judge did not impose a sentence of home detention, although the pre-sentence report had recommended such a sentence. The Judge said that the recommended motel address posed safety and welfare concerns as there was a child living there, and that police had attended eight family violence incidents between Mr Goodwin and his partner. The Judge also commented on Mr Goodwin’s partner, saying she had “a tendency to get into violent…

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 Goodwin v Police

Details

AGLC: Goodwin v Police [2021] NZHC 1526
Case: [2021] NZHC 1526
Decision Date: 24 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Connor James Goodwin appeals his sentence of six months’ imprisonment for two charges: possessing an offensive weapon and assault with intent to injure. He appeals on two grounds: (a) that the Judge erred in assessing the appropriateness of the proposed address for home detention, taking into account extraneous information relating to his partner; and (b) that the Judge failed to adequately consider and assess whether alternative non-custodial sentences were appropriate. The central issue is whether the sentence should be quashed and, if so, what sentence should be imposed. The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive and quashed it, imposing instead a period of 18 months’ intensive supervision with special conditions, including that Mr Goodwin not possess, consume or use any alcohol or drugs not prescribed, attend an assessment for substance use counselling, attend and complete any counselling, treatment or programme as recommended by the assessment, and continue to attend family violence counselling. The court also ordered that Mr Goodwin be subject to judicial supervision and that a written report on his progress be provided to the court within three months and thereafter at six-monthly intervals.

Orders