Heald v R - [2014] NZCA 143

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA603/2013
[2014] NZCA 143

BETWEEN	JAMES ERIC HEALD Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	26 March 2014
Court:	Stevens, Andrews and Keane JJ
Counsel:	D G A Reece for Appellant J M Jelas for Respondent
Judgment:	16 April 2014 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Keane J)

On 14 August 2013 James Heald, following his guilty plea on arraignment the previous day, was sentenced to imprisonment for two years, five months for the burglary of a home in Orewa on 8 January 2013. He was sentenced concurrently to terms lying between one year and two months for 15 offences in the preceding 18 months. He was ordered to pay reparation of $1,708.50.[1]
[1]R v Heald DC Auckland CRI-2013-044-81, 14 August 2013.
Mr Heald appeals, as manifestly excessive, his sentence for his lead offence, the burglary. His appeal gives rise to three issues:
(a)Whether the sentencing Judge, Judge Rea, took an excessive starting point (two years, three months).
(b)Whether the Judge allowed Mr Heald insufficient credit for his age, his remorse and his lack of previous offending.
(c)Whether Mr Heald’s resulting sentence was manifestly excessive as a matter of totality.
The last of these issues has also to be set against those aspects of Mr Heald’s sentence that he does not contest: the nine month uplift the Judge imposed for the concurrent summary matters and the 25 per cent credit he allowed Mr Heald for his guilty plea.

Sentencing materials

According to the undisputed summary of fact on which Mr Heald was sentenced, he and three others travelled from Auckland to Orewa during the morning of 8 January 2013. He was one of the three passengers.
At Orewa he and one other passenger entered through an open door the home of the complainant, a 26 year old woman, and confronted her in her bedroom where she and her son had been sleeping or watching television. They demanded property. When she refused one of the two slid a weapon out of his sleeve, frightening her. One of the two then picked up a small safe and both ran from the house, chased by a flatmate. All four were apprehended shortly after. No one in the house was injured.
Mr Heald’s pre-sentence report stated that his six prior convictions for minor violence, disorderly behaviour, and driving offences extending back to 2007, when combined with his most recent offending over 18 months, culminating in the burglary, exhibited a concerning escalating pattern. His offending had become more frequent and more serious. His risk of reoffending was medium as was the risk he presented to others. The report recommended home detention.
A report three months earlier, relating to Mr Heald’s summary offences, said that he attributed his offending to the ending of a two year relationship, to his then daily use of methamphetamine, to depression and negative associates. He then said that he wanted to…

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 Heald v R

Details

AGLC: Heald v R [2014] NZCA 143
Case: [2014] NZCA 143
Decision Date: 16 April 2014 at 3.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, James Heald, the appellant, appealed against the sentence imposed by the sentencing Judge, Judge Rea, for his burglary conviction. Heald was sentenced to imprisonment for two years, five months for the burglary of a home in Orewa on 8 January 2013. Heald appealed the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal gave rise to three issues: whether the starting point of two years, three months was excessive, whether the Judge allowed Heald insufficient credit for his age, his remorse and his lack of previous offending, and whether the resulting sentence was manifestly excessive as a matter of totality. The Court of Appeal found that the starting point taken by the Judge was clearly within range and that the Judge made no error in any other aspect of the sentence he imposed.

The Court of Appeal considered the mitigating features of Heald's personal circumstances, including his age, lack of previous serious offending, and expressed remorse. The Court found that Heald's age of 25 was not particularly young and that his previous convictions, although not of the most serious order, did not attract any uplift. The Court also found that Heald had continued to offend with increasing persistence and seriousness, and that the burglary called for a deterrent sentence. The Court concluded that the Judge was right in not allowing Heald any discount on the account of remorse. The Court found that the Judge made no error in the starting point he adopted or in any other aspect of the sentence he imposed, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive as a matter of totality. Heald's appeal was dismissed.

Orders