[1] Mr Hancock was convicted on three counts of burglary.1 He was sentenced in the District Court at Dunedin to two years and one month imprisonment.2 He appeals against that sentence on the ground that an eight month uplift given for his previous offending was manifestly excessive.

The offending

[2] On 28 July 2014 Mr Hancock went to the premises of the Methodist Mission in Dunedin. He gained entry through an open door and walked towards a kitchen area. He took food items to the value of approximately $150. He escaped via a window.

[3] On 30 July 2014 Mr Hancock noticed that the garage door of a residential property in Dunedin was open. He entered the garage and took several power tools,

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a) (maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment).
2 Police v Hancock DC Dunedin CRI-2014-012-225/8, 26 September 2014.

HANCOCK v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 3030 [1 December 2014]

two sets of golf clubs and accessories, an umbrella, a golf trundle, and wet weather clothing. The items were valued at approximately $5,900. He also took three legs of lamb and ice cream, valued at approximately $110, from a freezer in the garage.

[4] On 4 August 2014 Mr Hancock walked up the driveway of another residential property in Dunedin and unsuccessfully attempted to jemmy open a basement window. He then went to a side door and smashed a glass pane at the bottom, causing approximately $100 worth of damage. He entered the lounge and removed a
50 inch plasma television, remote, and laptop computer valued at approximately

$2,000.

[5] Mr Hancock’s offending was discovered on 6 August 2014 when the police were called to his address on an unrelated matter. The police noticed some of the property taken in the burglaries and a search was conducted by consent. As a result some of the property from the 30 July 2014 burglary and all of the items from the 4
August 2014 burglary were recovered.

The offender

[6] Mr Hancock is 27 years old. He was out of work at the time of his offending and struggling financially on a joint benefit with his partner. He told the pre- sentence report writer that he was depressed about the situation and that he had reverted back to offending. Mr Hancock wrote letters to each of his three victims, and one to the Court. In each of these letters he apologised for his actions. He also asked the Court for a second chance by way of a community based sentence. He said his partner was due to give birth in March, that prison has been a wakeup call for him, and he wanted to be there…

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 Hancock v Police

Details

AGLC: Hancock v Police [2014] NZHC 3030
Case: [2014] NZHC 3030
Decision Date: 1 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Hancock appealed against his sentence imposed by the District Court. He was sentenced to two years and one month imprisonment for three counts of burglary. The sole ground of appeal was that the eight month uplift given for his previous offending was manifestly excessive. The Court had to determine whether the uplift was appropriate and whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court considered the need for deterrence, the gravity of the offending, and the offender's history. The Court concluded that an uplift of up to six months would have been appropriate but the eight month uplift did not result in a manifestly excessive end sentence. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was not outside the available range.

The Court examined the offender's history and found that he had over 140 convictions, many of which were entered in the Youth Court. The Court found that although Mr Hancock had a significant history of dishonesty offending, the uplift of 30 per cent was excessive. However, the Court found that the end sentence was not outside the available range and was not manifestly excessive. The Court considered the need for deterrence, the gravity of the offending, and the offender's history. The Court concluded that the starting point adopted by the Judge was about right and the end sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court dismissed the appeal.

Orders