Hickman v The Queen - [2019] NZHC 3251

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-000434

[2019] NZHC 3251

BETWEEN
ALEXANDER PETER JOHN HICKMAN

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 10 December 2019

Appearances:

P McNabb and G Vear for the Appellant. M Davie for the Respondent

Judgment:

10 December 2019

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors / Counsel:

Public Defence Service, Auckland
Meredith Connell (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Auckland

HICKMAN v R [2019] NZHC 3251 [10 December 2019]

[1] Alexander Peter John Hickman pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, and one charge of common assault. He was sentenced by Judge R G Ronayne in the District Court to six months’ community detention, 18 months’ intensive supervision, 150 hours’ community work, and $1,212.66 in reparation.1 He appeals against sentence, solely on the basis that a reparation order should not have been made.

Offending

[2] Mr Hickman and two others went to a Mount Roskill address. Mr Hickman and one of his co-offenders went to the door and knocked. The victim opened the door and recognised Mr Hickman, both having attended the same high school. Mr Hickman then punched the victim in the mouth with a closed fist. The victim ran to a nearby store to call Police, and while there observed the three men running from his address and getting into a vehicle. On returning to the address with Police the victim noticed two television sets, a Playstation 4, and a Samsung smart phone had been taken. The total value of the goods set out in the agreed summary of facts was said to be
$1,212.66.

District Court sentencing

[3] The District Court Judge outlined the offending, and considered it would attract a global start point of two years six months’ imprisonment. After an uplift for Mr Hickman’s prior convictions and discounts for rehabilitation and guilty plea, he arrived at an end sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

[4] The Judge told Mr Hickman he would, as a result of Mr Hickman’s plain need for rehabilitation (Mr Hickman having engaged in drug rehabilitation and being assessed at low risk of reoffending), commute this end sentence to community detention and intensive supervision rather than home detention.

[5] As noted, the Judge made a reparation order in the sum of $1,212.66. There is no mention of a reparation report, or waiver of such a report, in the sentencing notes.

1 R v Hickman [2019] NZDC 19930.

Nor is there any discussion as to what Mr Hickman’s financial circumstances might be.

Submissions

Submissions for Mr Hickman

[6] Ms McNabb, for Mr Hickman, makes three broad submissions as to why the reparation should be set aside.

[7] First, she notes that Mr Hickman had two co-offenders, neither of whom have been identified or charged. She says the value of the stolen goods should be reduced so that Mr Hickman is not liable for the full amount.

[8] Second, Ms McNabb says that although the agreed summary of facts records the value…

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 Hickman v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hickman v The Queen [2019] NZHC 3251
Case: [2019] NZHC 3251
Decision Date: 10 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hickman v The Queen involves Alexander Peter John Hickman, who appealed against his sentence imposed by the District Court. Hickman pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary and one charge of common assault. He was sentenced to six months’ community detention, 18 months’ intensive supervision, 150 hours’ community work, and $1,212.66 in reparation. The appeal was solely focused on the reparation order. The legal issues included whether the reparation order should be divided among co-offenders, the accuracy of the value of stolen goods, and whether there was sufficient information about Hickman’s financial circumstances to justify the order. The Court held that a single offender can be held liable for the whole amount where co-offenders have not been charged. The Court also found that the value of $1,212.66 was not excessive and that the District Court was not obliged to obtain valuations based on depreciation. Lastly, while the Court acknowledged the importance of considering the offender's financial circumstances, it concluded that the reparation order was not excessive given the relatively low amount ordered. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence, including the reparation order, was upheld.

Orders