Grant v Police - [2023] NZHC 3634

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-591

[2023] NZHC 3634

BETWEEN
SHAKUR GRANT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 11 December 2023

Appearances:

B J Munro for appellant

C M Fountain for respondent

Date of judgment:

12 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 December 2023 at 3.00pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Woodward Chrisp, Gisborne Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau

GRANT v POLICE [2023] NZHC 3634 [12 December 2023]

[1] Shakur Grant appeals against Judge D Robinson’s 11 October 2023 sentence of him in the District Court at Manukau to 18 months’ imprisonment, 1 on Mr Grant’s guilty pleas to charges predominantly of weapons’ possession.2

Background

[2] Mr Grant was involved in two unrelated Gisborne altercations in each September 2022 and June 2023, in which he was found in possession of weapons, respectively a baseball bat and sawn-off shotgun and shells, the second altercation having gang overtones.

Judgment under appeal

[3] The Judge took the firearms offending as the lead offending. From a starting point range of two to three years’ imprisonment for more serious offending, he reduced that to an 18- to 27-month starting point. He uplifted the starting point to 30 months’ imprisonment to reflect aggravating features in Mr Grant’s possession: namely, as cut-down for concealment and risking wider harm; for use in conflict; and being without a firearms licence.

[4] The Judge then discounted the sentence to 18 months’ imprisonment (a 40 per cent discount) on account of Mr Grant’s guilty pleas (the maximum 25 per cent), contributing factors in his background (10 per cent) and his time spent on electronically-monitored bail. He declined to convert the sentence to home detention as contraindicated by Mr Grant’s previous breaches of court orders, and the seriousness of firearms offending requiring “deterrence and denunciation [to trump] rehabilitative outcomes even bearing in mind [Mr Grant’s] family circumstances”.3

1      Police v Grant [2023] NZDC 24185.
2      Possessing offensive weapon (Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(a): maximum penalty, three years’ imprisonment); intimidation by threatening to injure (Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a) and (3): maximum penalty, three months imprisonment); possessing firearm (Arms Act 1983, s 45: maximum penalty, four years’ imprisonment); possessing ammunition (Arms Act, s 51: maximum penalty, three years’ imprisonment); failure to answer District Court bail (Bail Act 2000, s 38: maximum penalty, one year’s imprisonment).
3      Police v Grant, above n 1, at [40].

[5] For Mr Grant, Bree Munro argues the Judge erred in declining home detention, being the least restrictive sentence appropriate in Mr Grant’s particular circumstances as relocated from Gisborne influences and with family responsibilities in Manukau.

Approach on appeal

[6] I must allow the appeal only if I am satisfied both there is error in the sentence, and a different sentence should be imposed.4 In any other case, I must dismiss the appeal.5 The measure of error is…

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 Grant v Police

Details

AGLC: Grant v Police [2023] NZHC 3634
Case: [2023] NZHC 3634
Decision Date: 12 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shakur Grant appeals against his sentence imposed by Judge D Robinson in the Manukau District Court on 11 October 2023, following his pleas of guilty to charges predominantly of weapons possession. The central issue on appeal is whether the Judge erred in declining to convert the 18-month imprisonment sentence to home detention. The appeal hinges on whether the Judge made an error in his sentencing decision and whether an alternative sentence should have been imposed.

The Court considered whether the Judge’s decision to impose imprisonment instead of home detention constituted an error. The appeal noted the Judge’s consideration of Mr Grant’s family circumstances, previous breaches of court orders, and the seriousness of the firearms offence. The Court held that the Judge’s decision to impose imprisonment was justified, particularly given Mr Grant's history of breaching home detention and his firearms offence, which indicated a need for deterrence and denunciation. The Court found no error in the Judge’s assessment and weighing of the relevant factors for exercising his sentencing discretion against home detention.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Judge’s decision to impose imprisonment over home detention. The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the Judge had properly exercised his discretion in considering all relevant sentencing principles and purposes.

Orders