Gray v Police

Case [2015] NZHC 81


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2014-463-95 [2015] NZHC 81

BETWEEN

PETER BILL GRAY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 4 February 2015

Counsel:

M McGhie for appellant
JJ Rhodes for respondent

Judgment:

4 February 2015

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF FAIRE J

Solicitors:           M McGhie, Papamoa

Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Tauranga

Gray v New Zealand Police [2015] NZHC 81 [4 February 2015]

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................[1] Facts .......................................................................................................................[4] District Court Decision ..........................................................................................[9] Ground of Appeal .................................................................................................[12] Approach to appeal against sentence ...................................................................[13]

Appellant’s submissions .............................................................................................

Firearms charges  [19] Excess breath alcohol charge  [21]

Respondent’s submissions....................................................................................[25] Firearms charges  [26] Excess breath alcohol charge  [28]

Relevant Law .............................................................................................................

Firearms charges  [30] Excess breath alcohol charge  [35]

Analysis ......................................................................................................................

Firearms charges  [39] Excess breath alcohol charge  [48] Vehicle confiscation order  [52] Community work and disqualification from driving  [56]

Result....................................................................................................................[57]

Introduction

[1]      Mr  Gray  was  sentenced  on  the  following  offences  by  Judge  Bidois  on

26 November 2014:

(a)      Two  charges  of  unlawful  possession  of  firearm  and  explosives (shotgun and ammunition) under s 45 of the Arms Act 1983.   The maximum penalty for the offence is four years’ imprisonment;

(b)      Four charges of presenting a firearm at a person under s 52(1) of the

Arms Act. The maximum penalty is three months’ imprisonment;

(c)      Driving with excess breath alcohol, third or subsequent, under s 56(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998.  The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.

[2]      Mr  Gray  received  the  following  sentences  and  orders  for  the  whole offending:

(a)       12 months’ home detention; (b) 280 hours’ community work;

(c)       Disqualification from driving for one year and one day;

(d)      Confiscation of a motor vehicle pursuant to s 129 of the Sentencing

Act 2002.

[3]      Mr Gray appeals the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive.

Facts

[4]      On the afternoon of 1 August 2014 Mr Gray consumed some alcohol.  In the late afternoon Mr Gray, together with a male associate drove to visit Mr Gray’s friend at  the  friend’s  place of work.    Mr Gray made some  enquiries  as  to  the whereabouts of his friend and was told by a worker that his friend was still at work. Mr Gray and his associate then left the address and drove to Mr Gray’s address a short distance away.  There Mr Gray took a firearm and ammunition that belonged to his grandfather-in-law (who is also resident at the address) and returned to the place of work of his friend.

[5]      Upon his return he approached and spoke to a group of persons who were standing outside the premises.  One member of the group and Mr Gray exchanged heated words, at which point the worker called Mr Gray a “dog” – a colloquial term for a member of the Mongrel Mob.  Mr Gray went into his car (in view of the group) and produced the shotgun and ammunition.  He loaded the gun in front of the group as I understand it, and lifted it, scanning with it at all members of…

Continue reading Gray v Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gray v Police [2015] NZHC 81
Case
[2015] NZHC 81
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peter Bill Gray appeals his sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. He disputes the sentence for the firearm charges, the excess breath alcohol charge and the confiscation of the vehicle. The Court noted that the starting point taken by the Judge in respect of the firearms charges was too high and that the sentence imposed for the excess breath alcohol charge was not manifestly excessive. The Crown submitted that Freme v Police is a more directly comparable case than those presented on the appellant’s behalf. The Court adopted a starting point of 14 months’ imprisonment for the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm and a starting point of two months’ imprisonment to reflect the number of victims in this case. The total home detention sentence is eight months. This is a third less than the sentence imposed by the District Court. It follows that the original sentence for the firearms charges and excess breath alcohol was erroneous and should be substituted for eight months’ home detention. The confiscation order is set aside. The appeal is allowed to reflect the above position.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.