Grace v Police - [2016] NZHC 3021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2016-412-000026 [2016] NZHC 3021

BETWEEN
LOGAN DEAN GRACE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 12 December 2016

Appearances:

A Dawson for Appellant
CER Power for Respondent

Judgment:

12 December 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] Mr Grace appeals against a sentence of two years and three months’

imprisonment by His Honour Judge Crosbie in the Dunedin District Court on

19 October 2016. This sentence was for:

(a) Two charges of male assaults female; (b) Two charges of wilful damage; and (c) One charge of intimidation.

[2] The appellant advances three grounds for this appeal and contends that the sentence passed by Judge Crosbie as a result was manifestly excessive. The grounds for the appeal advanced are, first, that the starting point adopted by the Judge in the District Court was too high. Secondly, the uplift of four months for the Summary
Offences Act offences was excessive. And thirdly, the Judge in the District Court

GRACE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 3021 [12 December 2016]

gave insufficient credit for mitigating factors. Each ground of appeal is to be addressed shortly but, first, I set out the factual background for this matter.

Factual Background

[3] The victim in relation to these events is a 24 year old woman. She is known to the appellant who is aged 42. The victim had been in a relationship with the appellant for several weeks at the time of the offending which took place over a
14 day period between 19 December 2015 and 1 January 2016.

First Male assaults female

[4] Turning now to the first charge of male assaults female, on 19 December

2015, the victim and the appellant had been socialising together, it seems, at a party. Together they left, got into a van when the victim discovered she had left her bag inside the house. She told the appellant she was going to go back to get her bag. The appellant immediately back-handed the victim to the face four times, splitting her lip which was then bleeding.

[5] The appellant, it seems, yelled and swore at the victim, calling her a slut and accusing her of talking to other men. During this the appellant slammed his left hand into her throat and pushed hard on her neck. She was struggling hard to breathe but he continued, it seems, to yell and abuse her. Bruising was caused to the victim from her earlobes down past her jaw to her collarbone and her neck area, including her chest.

[6] A few days later the appellant continued to text the victim, saying how sorry he was and he would not do it again. As a result it seems they resumed contact.

Wilful damage

[7] Turning now to the wilful damage charge, several days later, on the night of

25 December 2015, the appellant and the victim had an argument. During this the appellant accused the victim of flirting with his friend and…

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 Grace v Police

Details

AGLC: Grace v Police [2016] NZHC 3021
Case: [2016] NZHC 3021
Decision Date: 12 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Logan Dean Grace appealed against a sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment imposed by Judge Crosbie in the Dunedin District Court on 19 October 2016, for multiple charges including male assaults on a female, wilful damage, and intimidation. The appeal was based on three grounds: the starting point for sentencing was too high, the uplift for the Summary Offences Act offences was excessive, and insufficient credit was given for mitigating factors. The court first considered whether the starting point of 18 months for each male assault charge was too high. The court found that while the starting point was at the higher end of the spectrum, Judge Crosbie's decision was justified based on the severity of the assaults, which involved strangulation and resulted in significant bruising and fear for the victim's life.

The court next examined the four-month uplift for the Summary Offences Act offences, which included wilful damage and intimidation. The court held that the uplift was reasonable, given the repeated damaging of the victim's phones and the serious nature of the intimidation, which involved brandishing a machete. Finally, the court assessed whether sufficient credit was given for mitigating factors, such as the appellant's guilty plea and remorse. The court determined that the 30% discount given by Judge Crosbie was generous and appropriately acknowledged the appellant's mitigating factors.

The court concluded that Judge Crosbie did not err in his sentencing and that the imposed sentence was within the range of available sentences. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment was upheld.

Orders