Hall v Police - [2019] NZHC 1370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2019463-44

[2019] NZHC 1370

BETWEEN
HENDRIX HALL

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 17 June 2019

Appearances:

E Reilly for Appellant

M Jenkins for Respondent

Judgment:

17 June 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

[Appeal against Sentence]

HALL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1370 [17 June 2019]

Introduction

[1]The appellant, Hendrix Hall, pleaded guilty to the following offending:

(a)On 18 May 2018, assault on a child1 and common assault.2

(b)On 20 May 2018, male assaults female.3

(c)On 23 May 2018, intimidation.4

[2]Mr Hall also failed to answer bail on 27 June 2018 and 5 September 2018.5

[3] On 17 October 2018, Mr Hall was sentenced to 12 months’ intensive supervision by Judge GC Hollister-Jones.6

[4]But then Mr Hall offended again:

(a)On 8 December 2018, breach of a protection order7 and assaulting a female.

(b)On 15 December 2018, burglary.8

(c)On 18 December 2018, breach of intensive supervision.9

(d)On 3 January 2019, failing to report.10

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 194(a); the maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 196; the maximum penalty is one year’s imprisonment.
3      Section 194(b); the maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.
4      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(d); the maximum penalty is three months’ imprisonment or a fine of $3,000.
5      Bail Act 2000, s 38; the maximum penalty is one year’s imprisonment or a fine of $2,000.
6      Police v Hall [2018] NZDC 22273.
7      Domestic Violence Act 1995, s 49; the maximum penalty is three years’ imprisonment.
8      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a); the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
9      Sentencing Act 2002, s 70A(a); the maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment or a fine of
$1,500.
10     Section 70A(b); the maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment or a fine of $1,500.

[5] Mr Hall pleaded guilty to these charges also. The Department of Corrections applied to have Mr Hall re-sentenced on all charges.11 That application was accepted by Mr Hall. On 17 April 2019, therefore, Judge Hollister-Jones sentenced him to two years and 10 months’ imprisonment for all of the offending.12 Notwithstanding that he escaped a further two months’ imprisonment because of a mistake by the Judge, Mr Hall now appeals.

The offending

[6]Mr Hall and M were in an intermittent relationship for roughly six years.

18 May 2018 - Assault on a child and common assault

[7] On 18 May 2018, Mr Hall was at home looking after M’s 10-year-old son. Mr Hall told him to go to bed but the child went outside. Mr Hall grabbed him by the arms and pushed him into the door, causing a welt on his leg. M came home and her son told her what had happened. She confronted Mr Hall about it and an argument ensued. M ended up on the ground and Mr Hall dragged her outside by the feet.

20 May 2018 – male assaults female

[8] On 20 May…

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 [2019] NZHC 1370
Case: [2019] NZHC 1370
Decision Date: 17 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hendrix Hall appealed against his sentence following convictions for multiple offences including assault on a child, male assaults female, intimidation, breach of protection order, burglary, breach of intensive supervision, and failure to report. Hall's appeal was on the basis that the sentence imposed was too lenient as a result of arithmetical errors made by the sentencing Judge. The legal issues for the Court were whether the sentence imposed by the Judge was within the range reasonably available to the Court, and if so, whether the Court should increase the sentence to the one the Judge had intended to impose. The Court considered the starting points and uplifts imposed by the Judge were appropriate, and that the end sentence of two years and ten months’ imprisonment was within the range reasonably available to the Court and was not manifestly excessive. The Court dismissed the appeal.

The Court concluded that the starting point of 14 months for the first set of offending was appropriate, and the overall starting point of four years’ imprisonment was within range and not manifestly excessive. The Court noted that given the arithmetical errors that had been made, Hall was fortunate not to have been sentenced to a longer term of imprisonment. The Court also considered that the Judge’s failure to recognise certain factors such as Hall’s extensive criminal history did not result in an end sentence that was manifestly excessive. The Court further noted that it would not be fair to Hall nor assist his rehabilitation to increase the sentence any further. The Court dismissed the appeal.

Orders