Green v The King - [2024] NZHC 2146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2024-483-006 [2024] NZHC 2146

BETWEEN
REIJHAN GREEN

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 31 July 2024

Appearances:

D M Goodlet for Appellant

C B Wilkinson-Smith and A R Kearney for Respondent

Judgment:

1 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

[Sentence appeal]

[1] Mr Green appeals against his sentence of two years’ and one month imprisonment imposed on 6 June 2024 on a number of charges.1 The sentencing followed a sentence indication on 2 May 2023 which Mr Green accepted.2 Mr Green takes no issue with the starting points adopted for the various charges, or to the uplift for his previous conviction history. However, he contends that the Judge should have applied a reduction of five per cent to reflect the remorse he expressed in a letter he provided to the Court at his sentencing. He also considers that he should have been afforded a greater reduction for personal mitigating factors of 15 per cent, as opposed to the 10 per cent reduction the Judge made.

[2] The respondent’s position is that the sentencing Court was correct to decline to reduce the sentence because of an expression of remorse and was correct to limit the

1 Police v Green [2024] NZDC 12992.
2 Police v Green DC Whanganui CRI 2023-083-000126, 2 May 2024 (Notes of Judge J Krebs on Sentencing Indication) [Sentencing Indication].

GREEN v R [2024] NZHC 2146 [1 August 2024]

reduction for personal factors to 10 per cent, given the need for accountability, denunciation and deterrence, and community protection to take priority in Mr Green’s sentencing.

The offending

[3] On 16 August 2022, Mr Green was sentenced to four months’ home detention on one charge of burglary.

[4] On 1 September 2022, Mr Green breached his home detention sentence by leaving his address without approval and without an acceptable explanation, having previously being warned for failing to comply. He breached home detention again on 21 November 2022 by failing to charge his GPS tracker adequately. When the signal was lost and a security guard visited his address, the guard was advised that Mr Green was not onsite. He did not have an approved absence and he could not be found.3

[5] On 24 December 2022, Mr Green entered a property that was unoccupied but fully locked. He searched the property and took items estimated to be valued at
$8,000.4

[6] Mr Green committed a second burglary between 25 December 2022 and 23 January 2023. Mr Green pried open the lounge window of an unoccupied home and removed the window stay, entered the property, searched the house, and took items valued at approximately $1,450.5

[7] On 25 January 2023, Mr Green was driving in Whanganui and was followed by a marked Police patrol vehicle. When his car entered a shopping centre carpark, the Police activated lights and sirens. Mr Green’s car was blocked by two other cars waiting at the carpark exit. He…

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 Green v The King

Details

AGLC: Green v The King [2024] NZHC 2146
Case: [2024] NZHC 2146
Decision Date: 1 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Reijhhan Green appealed against a two-year and one-month imprisonment sentence imposed on 6 June 2024, following convictions on multiple charges. The appeal was heard on 31 July 2024, with judgment delivered on 1 August 2024 by Grau J. Mr Green contended that the sentence should have been reduced by five per cent for the remorse he expressed in a letter provided to the Court at sentencing, and by 15 per cent for personal mitigating factors, rather than the 10 per cent reduction the Judge made. The respondent argued that the sentencing Court was correct to decline the reductions, given the need for accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and community protection. The court considered whether the Judge erred in declining to reduce the sentence for the expression of remorse and for personal mitigating factors.

The court found that the Judge was not in error in declining to reduce the sentence for the expression of remorse. Mr Green had a criminal history consisting of over 100 previous convictions, including a significant number of burglaries. The Judge was sceptical about Mr Green’s claims of genuine remorse, especially given his denial of the offence during a pre-conference interview for restorative justice. The court held that the Judge was entitled to be sceptical and that no error was made in declining to make any reduction for remorse. The court also found that the Judge did not err by making an insufficient allowance for personal factors. Decisions from higher courts had established that the influence of causative factors could be reduced or displaced when offending was particularly serious and other sentencing principles needed to take priority. The seriousness of the offending itself was reflected in the starting points adopted for the burglaries. The Judge's approach resulted in a final sentence that was two months lower than it would have been had it been calculated using the Moses methodology, meaning the sentence imposed was not excessive.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentence imposed by the sentencing Court was upheld as appropriate, given the seriousness of the offending and the need for accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and community protection. The court found no error in the sentencing exercise.

Orders