[1] On 27 October 2015 Rahuia Harrison was sentenced in the District Court, Hamilton, to imprisonment for four years, two months, for 89 property offences, committed in four phases between May 2014 – January 2015.

[2] In imposing that sentence Judge R L B Spear took a two year starting point for Ms Harrison’s primary initial offence; a representative charge of burglary during the first phase of that offending, between 22 May – 26 July 2014, reflecting five distinct offences. In each of those five instances Ms Harrison went into the private areas of shops, sometimes relying on others to distract the staff, intent on taking cash and credit cards from the staff ’s handbags and wallets.

[3] The Judge took a cumulative three year starting point for the balance of Ms Harrison’s offending (four related theft offences, 13 receiving offences, and 72 offences of dishonestly using a document, the credit cards Ms Harrison stole or received), which he reduced to two years to accord with the principle of totality. His cumulative starting point for her total offending became, therefore, four years.

[4] The Judge increased that starting point by 12 months (20%) to mark Ms Harrison’s very extensive previous convictions for indistinguishable offending and by a further six months (9%) because she had committed all of her offences, after those in the first phase, while on EM bail. He reduced that heightened starting point, five years, six months, by seven months (10.6%) for her participation in a restorative justice conference, and by a further nine months (15.25%) on account of her plea.

[5] On this appeal against her sentence, Ms Harrison contends that the Judge’s starting point for the representative burglary offence was excessive. Her five offences within that offence were not, she contends, to be equated with house burglaries, as the Judge, she says, apparently assumed. They were not as invasive. Nor did they involve any equivalent risk to occupants. His starting point for that representative offence ought not to have been more than 18 months.

[6] Ms Harrison does not challenge, as such, the Judge’s reduced two year starting point for her remaining offences. She accepted on the appeal that her offending as a whole might have warranted a total starting point of three years, six

months. She does contend that the Judge’s initial three year starting point for that remaining offending was excessive.

[7] Those are the issues on this appeal. Ms Harrison does not contend that her cumulative sentence was wrong in principle. Nor…

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 Harrison v Police

Details

AGLC: Harrison v Police [2016] NZHC 126
Case: [2016] NZHC 126
Decision Date: 10 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Harrison v Police involved the defendant, Rahuia Harrison, who was sentenced to four years and two months in prison for 89 property offences committed between May 2014 and January 2015. The defendant appealed against her sentence, arguing that the starting point for the representative burglary offence was excessive and that the starting point for the remaining offences was also too high. The central issue was whether the starting points for the offences appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offending and whether the total sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the overall offending.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly the intrinsic seriousness of the offending and the principle of totality. It considered whether the starting points adopted by the Judge were consistent with those taken in similar cases. The court found that while the starting point for the burglary offence was indeed excessive, the overall starting point for the remaining offences was appropriate. The court concluded that the total starting point was proportionate to the defendant's entire offending, and thus dismissed her appeal.

The court's judgment highlights the need for careful assessment of the seriousness of each offence and the overall offending when determining starting points and the total sentence. The principles of sentencing, including the principle of totality and the need for a composite evaluation of culpability, were crucial in this decision. The court ultimately found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and was proportionate to the gravity of the defendant's overall offending.

Orders