Hadfield v Police - [2012] NZHC 2363

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2012-412-000035 [2012] NZHC 2363

BETWEEN TAHI SELWYN HADFIELD Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 12 September 2012

Counsel: S N Claver for Appellant
R D Smith for Respondent

Judgment: 13 September 2012

In accordance with r 11.5 I direct the Registrar to endorse this judgment with the delivery time of 2.30pm on the 13th day of September 2012.

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Hadfield seeks leave to appeal sentences imposed upon him on 2 April

2012 in Dunedin District Court. The sentencing that day involved two sets of offences:

(1)The first matters involved re-sentencing. Mr Hadfield was required to be re-sentenced because he had breached the terms of a three months’ community detention sentence. He had served one month of that sentence at the time of his reoffending. The offences for which he
was to be re-sentenced were:

HADFIELD V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC DUN CRI-2012-412-000035 [13 September 2012]

(a) theft, contrary to ss 219(1)(a) and 223(d) of the Crimes

Act 1961;

(b)possession of cannabis, contrary to s 7(1)(a), (2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1985; and

(c) unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, contrary to s 226(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961.

(2) The new offences for which Mr Hadfield appeared for sentencing on

2 April 2012 were:

(a) male assaults female, contrary to s 194(b) of the

Crimes Act 1961. That offending took place on

25 January 2012;

(b) male assaults female, contrary to s 194(b) of the

Crimes Act 1961. That offending occurred on 6 March

2012; and

(c) wilful damage, contrary to s 11(1)(a) of the Summary

Offences Act 1981. That offending took place on

6 March 2012.

[2] The District Court Judge imposed a final sentence of 13 months’ imprisonment. The District Court Judge attached conditions to that sentence that Mr Hadfield undertake an anger/alcohol treatment programme. The District Court Judge also imposed a protection order against the complainant in relation to the assaults which took place on 25 January and 6 March 2012. A reparation order amounting to $70 for the wilful damage count was also imposed.

[3] The essence of Mr Hadfield’s appeal is that the sentence imposed was

manifestly excessive in the light of:

(1) the nature of the charges; and

(2) his previous offending.

The offending

[4] The offences for which Mr Hadfield was re-sentenced appeared to have occurred on 4, 11 and 23 October 2011.

[5] From the information before me I understand that on 4 October 2011

Mr Hadfield was a passenger in a vehicle. The vehicle pulled into a petrol station. Mr Hadfield got out and pumped petrol into the vehicle. He then got back inside. The vehicle was driven away. The value of the petrol stolen was $31.55.

[6] On 11 October 2011 Mr Hadfield was found in a street in Dunedin with a small quantity of cannabis in his possession.

[7] On 23 October 2011 Mr Hadfield took a caterpillar digger parked at a…

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 Hadfield v Police

Details

AGLC: Hadfield v Police [2012] NZHC 2363
Case: [2012] NZHC 2363
Decision Date: 13 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Tahi Selwyn Hadfield, appealed against the sentences imposed by the Dunedin District Court on 2 April 2012. The sentences involved two sets of offences: the re-sentencing of prior offences and new offences committed in January and March 2012. The re-sentencing was due to the appellant breaching the terms of a community detention sentence. The new offences included theft, possession of cannabis, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, assault of a female, and wilful damage. The District Court imposed a final sentence of 13 months' imprisonment, with additional conditions such as an anger/alcohol treatment programme, a protection order, and a reparation order.

The main legal issue in this case was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the charges and the appellant's previous offending history. The appellant argued that the sentence was too harsh given the circumstances, while the Crown maintained that the sentence was appropriate and consistent with sentences imposed for similar offences.

The Court found that the District Court may have adopted the wrong approach when substituting the remaining two months of community detention with a sentence of four months' imprisonment. The Court considered that an end sentence of two months' imprisonment would have been appropriate, and that a starting point of three months' imprisonment should be applied for the re-sentencing offences, with a one-month deduction for the guilty plea. The Court also found that the sentence for the new offences was appropriate, with a starting point of three months' imprisonment for the first incident, six months for the second set of incidents, and an additional three months to reflect the appellant's previous offences. A three-month deduction for the guilty plea was also considered.

The Court concluded that the District Court erred when imposing a sentence of four months' imprisonment in substitution for two months' community detention, which was a significant factor justifying the appeal. The appeal was allowed, and the final prison sentence of 13 months was quashed and substituted with a period of imprisonment of 11 months.

Orders