Head v Police

Case [2017] NZHC 1462

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2017-409-52 [2017] NZHC 1462

BETWEEN

ADAM RAYMOND HEAD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
Hearing: 28 June 2017

Appearances:

R J M G Glover for Appellant
S J Mallett and S Dayal for Respondent

Judgment:

28 June 2017

JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J

(ON APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - REASONS TO FOLLOW)

[1]      This appeal was heard on Wednesday 28 June 2017.

[2]      The appeal is dismissed and Reasons for Judgment will follow.

……………………………………………….

Nicholas Davidson J

Solicitors:

R J M G Glover, Barrister, Christchurch

Raymond Donnelly & Co., Christchurch

HEAD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 1462 [28 June 2017]

Details
AGLC
Head v Police [2017] NZHC 1462
Case
[2017] NZHC 1462
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand dealt with an appeal against sentence in the case of Head v Police. Adam Raymond Head, the appellant, was appealing against the sentence imposed by the District Court. The New Zealand Police, the respondent, defended the sentence. The appeal hearing took place on 28 June 2017, with R J M G Glover representing the appellant and S J Mallett and S Dayal representing the respondent. The judgment, dismissing the appeal, was delivered on the same day.

The legal issues in this case centred on the appellant's challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed by the District Court. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate to the offence committed. The court had to determine whether the District Court exercised its sentencing discretion properly, and if the sentence was within the bounds of reasonableness.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Nicholas Davidson examined the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing relevant to the case. The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors presented by both parties. After a thorough analysis, Justice Davidson concluded that the District Court had exercised its sentencing discretion appropriately and that the sentence was not excessive or disproportionate. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The District Court's sentencing decision was upheld, and the original sentence remained in place. Reasons for the judgment were to be provided in due course.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.