Legal Research
Cases
Hall v Police

Hall v Police

Case [2020] NZHC 1988 7 August 2020

Appeal

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Pre-sentence Detention

Time Served on Recall

Uplift for Offending on Parole

Discount for Time on Recall

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2020-404-000237

[2020] NZHC 1988

BETWEEN
LANCE CLINTON HALL

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 3 August 2020

Appearances:

R N Roy for the Applicant

J M Phillips for the Respondent

Judgment:

7 August 2020

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 07 August 2020 at 3.00pm

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Public Defence Service, Manukau, Auckland Crown Solicitor, Auckland

HALL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 1988 [7 August 2020]

Introduction

[1] Mr Hall pleaded guilty in the District Court to four charges of male assaults female.1 He was sentenced on 14 February 2020 to 17 and a half months’ imprisonment.2 He appeals against that sentence. The essential basis of his appeal is that the District Court Judge erred by failing to apply a discount to reflect the time Mr Hall served in custody as a recalled prisoner prior to sentencing. Mr Hall says that, as a consequence of this error, the sentence was manifestly excessive.

[2] The appeal was filed out of time. Mr Hall sought an extension of time to appeal. The Crown did not oppose an extension, and I grant it.

Factual background

[3] In 2009 Mr Hall was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment on two charges of sexual violation by rape, three charges of male assaults female, and one charge of threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm.3 This was imposed cumulatively on a sentence of two years and four months’ imprisonment for wounding with intent to injure which Mr Hall was already then serving.

[4] Mr Hall was released on parole on 8 July 2018. He committed the current offending between 9 September and 11 December 2018.

[5] The summary of facts describes four incidents. In the first, Mr Hall hit the victim (his then-partner) twice in the face using the back of his hand, causing her a black eye. In the second, Mr Hall struck the victim with a closed fist to the head while he was driving and she was in the passenger seat, continuing as she cowered in the foot-well. In the third, Mr Hall became enraged and hit the victim repeatedly on the legs using a belt. He then struck her with the belt buckle four to five times, connecting with her back, the back of her neck, her head and her hands as she attempted to shield herself. In the fourth, Mr Hall hit the victim in the face with an open hand, giving her

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 194(b). Maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
2      Police v Hall [2020] NZDC 2616.
3      See Hall v R [2010] NZCA 72 at [15].

a swollen and black eye. At the time the summary of facts was written the victim was still experiencing headaches, blurred vision and unsteadiness on her feet.

[6] On 10 January 2019 Mr Hall was taken into custody pursuant to an interim…

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 Hall v Police

Details

AGLC: Hall v Police [2020] NZHC 1988
Case: [2020] NZHC 1988
Decision Date: 7 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hall v Police, the High Court of New Zealand reviewed the sentencing of Mr. Hall who was convicted of multiple charges of male assaulting female. The core issue in the appeal was whether the District Court judge had erred by not applying a discount to the sentence to reflect the time Mr. Hall spent in custody as a recalled prisoner prior to his sentencing. The Court found that while the District Court judge did not consider the time spent on recall, such time should have been factored in through a discount to the sentence. The Court applied a discount of 66 percent of the actual time spent on recall, resulting in a nine-month discount. Additionally, the Court applied an uplift for the aggravating factor of offending on parole, leading to a four-month uplift. The Court then applied the two-step methodology set out in Moses v R, which led to a final sentence of 14 and a half months’ imprisonment, three months less than the original sentence. The Court concluded that the original sentence was manifestly excessive and substituted it with a lesser sentence.

Orders