Henry v Police - [2021] NZHC 573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-404-000031

[2021] NZHC 573

BETWEEN
VALINTINE JAMES HENRY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 16 March 2021

Appearances:

N N Mani and R E V Slade for Appellant D A McGivern for Respondent

Judgment:

19 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 19 March 2021 at 3.30 pm
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland Public Defence Service, Auckland

HENRY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 573 [19 March 2021]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Valintine Henry, was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment by Judge Collins in the Auckland District Court on 22 January 2021.1 Mr Henry had pleaded guilty to two charges of dishonestly using a document and to one charge of receiving.

[2] Mr Henry now appeals his sentence. He says that the Judge did not give him credit for remorse, that as a result the sentence is manifestly excessive and that the Judge failed to impose the least restrictive sentence available. The Crown supports the sentence, submitting that it is within the available range given Mr Henry’s offending and his culpability.

Background facts

Dishonestly using a document – first charge

[3] On 29 November 2019, HL parked his vehicle on Cliff Road in St Heliers. There was a passenger in the vehicle, SG. They left the vehicle, leaving some of their belongings in it. When they returned to the vehicle a short time later, they found that the front passenger’s window had been smashed and that SG’s handbag and its contents, valued at approximately $450, had been stolen. One of the items that had been in the handbag was an ASB credit card. Mr Henry used that credit card at a service station in Glen Innes later in the day to purchase two items with a combined value of $111.50.

Dishonestly using a document – second charge

[4] On 30 August 2020, RB was in her vehicle in Ronaki Road, Mission Bay. Her sister, JM, was with her. They left the vehicle after locking it. JM’s satchel was on the back seat of the vehicle. It contained an iPhone and a debit card issued by a British bank. The combined value of the items was approximately $1,400. When they returned to the vehicle approximately half an hour later, they discovered that the left rear window of the vehicle had been smashed and that the satchel was missing. Later

1 Police v Henry [2021] NZDC 968. (The judgment erroneously records that the sentencing proceeded on 22 January 2020).

on the same day, Mr Henry was captured on CCTV at a service station in St Heliers Bay Road using the stolen debit card to purchase items to the value of $77.50.

The receiving charge

[5] On 18 September 2020, an employee of a construction company was using a surveying camera mounted on a tripod in Mechanics Bay, Tamaki Drive. At approximately 4.25 pm, a…

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 Henry v Police

Details

AGLC: Henry v Police [2021] NZHC 573
Case: [2021] NZHC 573
Decision Date: 19 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Valintine James Henry has appealed against his sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Collins in the Auckland District Court. Mr Henry had pleaded guilty to two charges of dishonestly using a document and one charge of receiving. He claims that the Judge did not give him credit for remorse, that as a result the sentence is manifestly excessive and that the Judge failed to impose the least restrictive sentence available. The Crown supports the sentence, submitting that it is within the available range given Mr Henry’s offending and his culpability. The appeal raises the question of whether the Judge erred by failing to grant Mr Henry credit for remorse or by not considering a community-based sentence. The High Court found that there was no error in the sentence imposed by the District Court. The Judge was entitled to be sceptical of Mr Henry’s claimed remorse given his extensive criminal history and his refusal to accept responsibility for his offending. The High Court agreed with the District Court that Mr Henry was not a suitable candidate for a community-based sentence. A sentence of imprisonment was necessary to denounce Mr Henry’s offending and to protect the public from his manifest dishonesty. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders