Hadley v Department of Corrections - [2018] NZHC 2646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2018-412-000024 [2018] NZHC 2646

BETWEEN
SLANE JET HADLEY

Appellant

AND

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

CRI-2018-412-000025

BETWEEN SLANE JET HADLEY Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

CRI-2018-412-000026

BETWEEN SLANE JET HADLEY Appellant

ANDDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendant

Hearing: 11 October 2018

Appearances:

J A Westgate for Appellant
R D Smith for Respondent

Judgment:

11 October 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

HADLEY v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 2646 [11 October 2018]

Introduction

[1] On 17 August 2018 Judge Connell in the District Court sentenced the appellant to a total of seven months’ imprisonment for breaching his release conditions, breaching his community work and theft. The appellant argues that this sentence was manifestly excessive.

Facts

[2] Turning to the facts in this matter, on 27 June 2017 the appellant was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for various offending, including two counts of burglary, three counts of dangerous driving and one count of drink driving. Later, the appellant was released from prison on certain release conditions. He also remained subject to a disqualification from driving. Nevertheless, he drove and after being apprehended was sentenced to 50 hours’ community work. He then breached his release conditions and his community work requirement.

[3] In April 2018, Judge Phillips in the District Court sentenced the appellant to three months’ imprisonment for those two offences. This sentence was based on a six months starting point, adjusted for guilty pleas and totality. The Judge refused to cancel the sentence of community work. This further imprisonment sentence began. Then, after being released from prison and still subject to his original release conditions, the appellant again breached release conditions and his sentence of community work. This gave rise to his current charges.

[4] The appellant was also charged with one count of theft. This related to an event which occurred on Thursday, 24 May 2018, when the appellant took alcohol valued at
$30.99 without paying. He took the alcohol home and consumed it. The appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court to all three charges.

District Court decision

[5] Turning now to the District Court decision under appeal, in the District Court Judge Connell considered that as this was the second occasion on which the appellant had breached the same release conditions, his sentence must be an increase on the first.

He took a starting point of eight months and subtracted two months for the early guilty plea. The Judge sentenced the appellant to a concurrent sentence of three months for breaching his community work. He also granted Probation’s application to cancel that sentence. The appellant had not done any of that sentence. The Judge then took a starting point of six weeks for the theft charge. After a reduction for his guilty plea on this theft charge, the Judge imposed a one month sentence of imprisonment. This was to be served cumulatively on the sentences for the other offending. As I understand it,…

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 Hadley v Department of Corrections

Details

AGLC: Hadley v Department of Corrections [2018] NZHC 2646
Case: [2018] NZHC 2646
Decision Date: 11 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hadley v Department of Corrections involved an appeal against a sentence imposed by the District Court. Slane Jet Hadley, the appellant, contested the sentence of seven months' imprisonment that was imposed for breaching his release conditions, breaching his community work, and theft. Hadley argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the District Court had erred in its sentencing and if the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The key legal issues in this case were whether the District Court had erred in its sentencing process and whether the seven-month sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court needed to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly whether the starting point and the adjustments made by the District Court were appropriate. The Court also had to assess whether the sentence was justified by the totality of the appellant's offending and whether it was within the available range for such offenses.

In its judgment, the High Court found that the District Court had not erred in its imposition of the sentence. The starting point of eight months for breaching the release conditions was deemed appropriate given the appellant's history of non-compliance and sustained breaches. The Court also noted that the appellant had the benefit of having his community work sentence cancelled without a cumulative sentence of imprisonment being imposed. The one-month sentence for theft was considered appropriate. The Court concluded that the seven-month sentence, while stern, was not manifestly excessive when considering the totality of the appellant's offending. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The High Court found that the District Court's sentence was within the appropriate range and was justified by the circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized that while the sentence was stern, it was not manifestly excessive and did not warrant intervention by the High Court.

Orders