Heta v Police HC Christchurch CRI 2007-409-14

[2007] NZHC 1589

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2007-409-000014

AWHI HETA

Appellant

v

POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         8 February 2007

Appearances: G B Henderson for Appellant

B Hawes for Crown

Judgment:      8 February 2007

JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J

[1]      The appellant appeals against a sentence totalling 35 months imposed upon him in the District Court on 13 October.  As a consequence of entering guilty pleas to a large number of offences, including burglary, interfering with a motor vehicle breach  of  release  conditions  and  breach  of  community  work.     He  was  also resentenced on a variety of matters.   A full list of these charges will be appended to this judgment as a schedule.

[2]      He was resentenced because he did not complete a community work sentence arising from the earlier charges.  He is a young man, at the time of sentencing 19, now 20, of Nga Puhi descent.  He was born in Australia, lived in Perth until he was

HETA V POLICE  HC CHCH CRI 2007-409-000014  8 February 2007

11 years old then he moved to Dargaville where he lived with his grandparents.  His mother still lives in Australia.  Most of his immediate family live in Whangarei or Christchurch but he has some relatives on the West Coast in Reefton.  But essentially the picture is he is a young man cut  adrift  from his mother, his father  and  his grandparents and based on the Department of Corrections’ report of 5 October last I suspect that that lack of family support and discipline played a large part in his offending.

[3]      The Judges who have had to come to grips with this man’s offending and what to do with him have clearly tried community work.   That is no  longer an option.  He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment on a number of burglaries and then Judge Couch gave him an opportunity to stay in the community and do community work which he did not complete.

[4]      The matter then came before Judge Crosbie who was faced with what to do with this young man in this situation.  The Judge said on the breach of community work:

… you failed to report and did not perform any of the 100 hours imposed.

[5]      The young man does not seem to have learned his lesson from the 18 months in prison.  He does not seem to have taken the chance of staying out of prison and doing his community work and the sentencing Judge was then faced with what he described as a pile of paper of other charges.  The Judge himself summed it up by saying:

Since  your  release you  have committed  a  series  of  offences  of  varying seriousness  including breaching sentences  and as  I have said  all  of  this presents as a complicated way to sentence a young person because you just do not stop, you keep on going including trying to get going when you are in custody.

[6]      The Judge’s sentencing notes are immaculate in that he appears to have taken all the relevant  considerations  into  account  including particularly that  Heta is  a young man aged only 19.  He took into account the totality principle and he ended up imposing a total period of 35 months.

[7]      The appeal is based on the grounds that it is manifestly excessive.  Certainly, it is moderately alarming to see a young man of this age who has already been given a sentence of imprisonment to be resentenced to a 35 month period exposing him to even  more time  in  prison  and  increasing  the  likelihood  that  on  release  he  will become one of the criminal class permanently, at least through his 20s.  However, it is a matter of judgment for the sentencing Judge.  I am not satisfied there is any error of principle or that the sentence is manifestly excessive.  However, I am prompted by the circumstances to hope that the Parole Board will consider possibly some earlier release than normal for this young man, particularly if some of his family, whether immediate or extended, can rally round and provide some oversight where the young man could be placed on release as there are some indications that with a senior member of the family overseeing his conduct he might settle down and escape being a member of the criminal class.

[8]      This appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:

G B Henderson, Christchurch, for Appellant

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch, for Respondent

Guilty pleas as follows:

(a)      Breach of Release Conditions (26 April 2006) – 1 year

(b)      Breach Community Work (6 May 2006) – 3months

(c)      Unlawfully interferes with Motor Vehicle (30 June 2006) – 2 years

(d)      Intentional damage (16 August 2006) – 3 months

(e)      Burglary (31 August 2006) – 10 years

(f)       Possession cannabis (2 September 2006) – 3 months

(g)      Escapes Custody (5 September 2006) – 5 years

(h)      Assault on police officer (5 September 2006) – 6 months

Resentenced on following matters:

(a)      Possession cannabis instruments (20 February 2006) – 1 year

(b)      Unlawfully gets into Motor Vehicle (20 February 2006) – 2 years

(c)      Theft ex Car (20 February 2006) – 1 year

(d)      Breach of Release Conditions (23 March 2006) – 1 year

(e)      Escapes Custody (27 March 2006) – 5 years