Higgins v Police

[2014] NZHC 1592

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-485-35 [2014] NZHC 1592

BETWEEN

JACK HIGGINS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	8 July 2014
Appearances:	B Crowley for appellant A Whittaker for respondent
Judgment:	8 July 2014

ORAL JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

[1]      This is an appeal against the fine element of a sentence imposed in the District Court on 14 April 2014 on the appellant Jack Higgins on one count of wilful damage by tagging.

[2]      Mr Higgins is a young, first offender.  There was evidence that his offending may have been contributed to when he failed to continue taking prescription medication for a diagnosed condition of ADHD.  No permanent damage was caused by the tagging, and no reparation was sought.

[3]      In a very brief decision recording the outcome only, the Judge convicted Mr Higgins following his guilty plea and fined him $750 together with Court costs of $130 in the following terms:

[1]      Mr Higgins, on the one charge to which you earlier entered a guilty plea, convicted and fined $750, Court costs of $130.

HIGGINS v POLICE [2014] NZHC 1592 [8 July 2014]

[4]      Mr Higgins had originally appealed his conviction, but that appeal has been abandoned.  The question before me today is simply whether the fine of $750 is, as Mr Crowley  has  submitted,  out  of  line  with  general  sentencing  practice  in  the District  Court  and  hence  manifestly  excessive.    His  submission  was  that  such practice would typically involve fines for this type of offending of between $100 and

$200.

[5]      For the Crown Ms Whittaker was not able to throw any light on sentencing practice in the District Court.   Ms Whittaker acknowledged she had no basis on which to challenge that submission.

[6]      On  that  basis,  I  consider  I  should  accept  Mr Crowley’s  submission.    I certainly have no reason not to do so.  Nor, and this is no criticism of the Judge’s decision in what was a very straightforward matter, am I assisted as to any written reasons why the particular level of fine was imposed.  A sentence will be manifestly excessive where it is significantly out of line with accepted sentences for like offending.  On the basis of the materials before me, I am satisfied that that is the case with the $750 fine imposed on Mr Higgins.

[7]      I therefore allow the appeal and substitute a fine of $150 in place of the Court ordered fine in the District Court of $750. The order for Court costs will remain.

“Clifford J”

Solicitors:

B Cowley, Barrister, Wellington for the appellant.

Crown Solicitor, Wellington for the respondent.