[2] Mr Head appeals against a sentence of 27 months imprisonment for three sets of charges.2 The first set relates to cultivation of cannabis, possession of utensils, possessing medicine in an unlabelled container, and possession of utensils for cannabis and methamphetamine use. The second set relates to assault and wilful damage. The third set relates to unlawful possession of a shotgun. The Summary of Facts refers to the possession of a loaded crossbow but a charge of possession of an
offensive weapon was withdrawn.

1 Head v New Zealand Police [2017] NZHC 1462.
2 Police v Head [2017] NZDC 8202.

HEAD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 1733 [25 July 2017]

[3] The appellant primarily appeals on the grounds that the Judge erred by imposing an end sentence that was manifestly excessive, and that a lesser term of imprisonment or a term of home detention should have been imposed.

Summary of Facts

[4] During the execution of a search warrant on 15 July 2017, the appellant was found to be in possession of two sealed bags of cannabis head, a meth pipe and an unlabelled medicine container containing pills believed to be Diazepam. He was also found in possession of a cannabis pipe, 18 cannabis seedlings, and other growing equipment.

[5] On 26 July 2017, the appellant had a verbal altercation with his partner. While she lay on a couch, he placed one arm around her head and the other around her arm and squeezed her hard. When she left the room and came back, she was subject to further abuse, and her bathroom mirror and other light fittings were smashed by the appellant using a hammer.

[6] On 23 November 2015, the police were called to a disturbance on the street outside the appellant’s residence. He admitted possession of the shotgun in his vehicle. A search under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 resulted in the police recovering a shotgun with 22 shotgun cartridges, and a crossbow for which there is no charge. The shotgun and crossbow were ready to discharge.

District Court Sentencing

[7] His Honour Judge O’Driscoll identified the lead offending as the unlawful possession of a shotgun, and adopted a starting point of two years imprisonment. He uplifted the sentence by nine months for the drug related offences, and three months for common assault and wilful damage. The Judge discounted the sentence by
25 per cent for the guilty pleas. The end sentence was 27 months imprisonment.

Jurisdiction

[8] Mr Head appeals as of right.3 Such an appeal must only be allowed if…

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 Head v Police

Details

AGLC: Head v Police [2017] NZHC 1733
Case: [2017] NZHC 1733
Decision Date: 25 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns an appeal against sentence by Adam Raymond Head. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, on 28 June 2017. The appellant was sentenced to 27 months imprisonment by the District Court for various charges, including unlawful possession of a shotgun, drug-related offences, and assault and wilful damage. The primary ground for appeal was that the Judge erred by imposing a sentence that was manifestly excessive, and that a lesser term of imprisonment or a term of home detention should have been imposed instead.

The legal issues before the court were whether the starting point for the unlawful possession of the shotgun was manifestly excessive and if there were any other errors in the sentencing process. The appellant's counsel argued that the starting point of two years imprisonment for the lead offence was excessive and that the sentence should have been within the range of 12 to 18 months. The respondent argued that the starting point was well within the Judge's discretion and that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.

The High Court found that the starting point of two years imprisonment for the lead offence was within the Judge's discretion and was comparable to other cases with similar circumstances. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the Judge had appropriately considered the totality of the offending. The court held that the Judge was entitled to regard the appellant's good behaviour up to five years ago as of little weight in the current sentencing exercise. The outcome of the restorative justice conference, where the appellant demonstrated remorse and apologised for his actions, was also taken into account by the Judge. However, even if the Judge had not taken the outcome of the conference into account, the change to the end sentence would have been negligible.

In conclusion, the appeal against sentence was dismissed. The High Court found that the sentence imposed by the District Court was not manifestly excessive and was within the Judge's discretion. The court also found that the Judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors in the sentencing exercise. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and to confirm the sentence imposed by the District Court.

Orders