Guile v The Police HC Timaru Ap8/01

[2001] NZHC 274

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
TIMARU REGISTRY (held at Christchurch) AP8/01

BETWEEN GREGORY OWEN GUILE
Appellant

AND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 10 April 2001

Counsel: W N Van Vuuren for Appellant
T J Jackson for Respondent

ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHISHOLM J

[1] “Enough is enough” caputures the sentencing Judge’s attitude towards the appellant’s misuse of a telephone which resulted in a sentence of two months’ imprisonment. This was the appellant’s sixth conviction for this type of offence. On this most recent he had made a bogus emergency call alleging that a male with a firearm was walking across the Countdown supermarket car park. Previous convictions have arisen from other bogus calls involving various emergency services.

[2] On previous occasions he has been sentenced to fines, supervision and community service. Late last year he received a sentence of one month’s imprisonment in relation to two hoax telephone calls but that sentence was overturned on appeal and replaced by a sentence of 100 hours community service.

Apparently the appellant was present and would have heard Hansen J say:

“. . . this young man must realise that this is the very last chance the Court can give him for offending of this sort. If he repeats this type of offending, the next time prison is inevitable, and it will be a much longer term than the one month imposed by the Learned District Court Judge.”

Unfortunately he did not heed that warning.

[3] When he imposed sentence on this most recent occasion the District Court Judge had before him earlier probation officer’s reports together with a supplementary report delivered on the day of sentencing. The supplementary report indicates that although the appellant’s initial response to supervision was positive, he had recently failed to attend appointments with the Timaru Alcohol and Drug Centre, although he had attended appointments with his counsellor, his supervising officer and a Department of Corrections psychologist. Moreover, he had not completed the sentence of community service despite the fact that he had “been given a great deal of encouragement to do so by both his supervision and community service Probation Officers as well as the sponsor.” Twenty hours remains outstanding.

[4] Mr Van Vuuren has raised every point that could possibly be raised in support of this appeal. He has submitted that this is an unusual situation involving an unusual young man who needs assistance and that when the conduct on this particular occasion and his personal circumstances are taken into account, a sentence of imprisonment was manifestly excessive or inappropriate. It was argued by Mr Van Vuuren that the appropriate response would have been a sentence of periodic detention. A brief report from the crisis team was provided to illustrate that the appellant is suffering from a depressive disorder.

[5] Despite Mr Van Vuuren’s very best efforts to persuade me to the contrary, I am perfectly satisfied that the sentence of two months’ imprisonment was entirely appropriate in all the circumstances. This young 24 year old man has been given all the opportunities in the world to desist from making these bogus calls to emergency services. It has been repeatedly stressed to him that such calls can place other lives at risk. Last year he received the benefit of a sentence of community service coupled with a warning that it was his last chance. He blew that opportunity not only by offending again but also by failing to complete the sentence of community service. Despite encouragement by his supervisor and his then sponsor he was not able to bring himself to comply with that community based sentence. Given that attitude it is not possible to be optimistic that he would respond to periodic detention.

[6] The sentencing Judge traversed all relevant factors including the fact that the appellant is currently employed. In the end the Judge was driven to the conclusion that a sentence of imprisonment had to be imposed. Sooner or later the appellant will have to face up to the reality that the Courts’ patience has run out. This type of offending will not be tolerated.

[7] The appeal is dismissed.