Hill v The King
[2024] NZHC 776
•12 April 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2024-488-21
[2024] NZHC 776
BETWEEN SARAH HILL
Appellant
AND
THE KING
Respondent
Hearing: 11 April 2024 Appearances:
S Thode for the Appellant
B M O’Connor for the Respondent
Judgment:
12 April 2024
JUDGMENT OF WHATA J
Solicitors / Counsel:
ThodeUtting, Albany
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
HILL v R [2024] NZHC 776 [12 April 2024]
[1] Ms Hill appeals against a sentence of three years’, five months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge McDonald in the Whangarei District Court on 19 January 2024.
[2] On 10 April 2024, I sent a minute to counsel identifying that the application of various reductions identified by the sentencing Judge should have produced an end sentence of two years’ and seven months’ imprisonment.
[3] Both the appellant and the respondent agree that there has been an arithmetical error and that given the sentencing Judge’s specific deductions, the Judge can be said to have intended to impose a sentence of two years’ and seven months’ imprisonment.
[4]As the Court of Appeal said about appealable error in Tutakangahau v R:1
A straightforward example is where an explicit arithmetical error has occurred and would have been corrected if it had been drawn to the attention of the sentencing judge at the time. In those circumstances, we expect the appeal court will impose the corrected sentence, giving effect to the sentencing judge’s intentions.
[5] Counsel invited this Court to allow the appeal in so far as correcting the arithmetical error and to substitute the sentence to two years’, seven months’ imprisonment.
[6]I am satisfied that is the appropriate outcome.
Outcome
[7] Appeal allowed. The sentence of three years’ and five months’ is quashed. In its place I substitute a sentence to two years’ and seven months’ imprisonment.
Whata J
1 Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [36].
0