Grant v Police - [2014] NZHC 3164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-000368 [2014] NZHC 3164

MARK LUCAS GRANT Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 1 December 2014

Appearances:

Manpreet Kaur and Ina Stewart for the Appellant
Hannah Musgrave for the Respondent

Judgment:

11 December 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF MOORE J [Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by on 11 December 2014 at 11:00am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Date:

GRANT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 3164 [11 December 2014]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Mark Lucas Grant, pleaded guilty in the Pukekohe District Court to one charge of burglary. He was sentenced to two years and nine months’ imprisonment.

[2] He appeals that sentence on the basis that the starting point was manifestly excessive and that inadequate discounts were given for his remorse and other mitigating factors.

Background

[3] On 18 June 2014 Mr Grant was driving his car around the Waiuku area. He drove to two houses for the purpose of assessing of whether their occupants were at home and thus whether they presented as suitable targets for him to burgle. Both properties were occupied and Mr Grant used the ruse of seeking directions in an attempt to avoid suspicion. However, one of those to whom he spoke became suspicious and wrote down his registration number.

[4] Mr Grant drove to a third address. No one was at home. He broke into the house by standing on an air conditioning unit and forcing the bathroom window open. He then rifled through the drawers in the main bedroom and stole jewellery, an expensive men’s watch, cameras and a jewellery box containing more jewellery. The items had a high monetary and sentimental value to their owners.

[5] Mr Grant was apprehended by the Police when he returned home with the stolen property.

[6] The victim impact statement underscores the stress and the longer term effects the burglary has had on the victims.

[7] Mr Grant has a long list of previous convictions stretching back to 2001. Amongst those are numerous theft and property convictions and, by my calculation, some 34 previous convictions for burglary. He has served terms of imprisonment,

most recently three years’ imprisonment imposed in December 2009 following his

conviction on seven charges of burglary.

District Court decision

[8] The sentencing Judge noted that the factors contributing to the offending were Mr Grant’s sense of entitlement especially when he found himself unable to meet his financial obligations. She noted the medium risk of re-offending he posed but commented on the reference to the assessment of a high risk of re-offending in the psychological report.

[9] Her Honour took a starting point of three years’ imprisonment with an uplift of 12 months’ imprisonment in recognition of Mr Grant’s previous convictions. With a full guilty plea discount of 25 per cent and an additional month’s discount for remorse a final sentence of two years and nine months’ imprisonment was imposed.

Starting point

[10] Ms…

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 [2014] NZHC 3164
Case: [2014] NZHC 3164
Decision Date: 11 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mark Lucas Grant appealed against his sentence of two years and nine months’ imprisonment for burglary, arguing that the starting point was manifestly excessive and that inadequate discounts were given for his remorse and other mitigating factors. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The appeal was argued by Manpreet Kaur and Ina Stewart for the appellant, while Hannah Musgrave appeared for the respondent, the New Zealand Police. The court was required to determine whether the starting point of three years’ imprisonment was appropriate, and whether sufficient credit was given to mitigating factors such as remorse and the appellant’s efforts to change his life. The court found that while the starting point was appropriate, the discount for remorse and other mitigating factors should have been greater, leading to a final sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment. The appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was quashed, with a new sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment substituted.

Orders