Hinton v Police - [2015] NZHC 560

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2014-070-4356 [2015] NZHC 560

BETWEEN
JESSE PAUL HINTON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 24 March 2015

Appearances:

N M Dutch for Appellant
A Pollett for the Respondent

Judgment:

25 March 2015

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday 25 March 2015 at 2.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Solicitors:
N M Dutch, Barrister, Tauranga
A Pollett, Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Tauranga

HINTON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 560 [25 March 2015]

[1] Mr Hinton pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, one charge of assault with a blunt instrument, namely a car. That offence carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment under s 202C of the Crimes Act 1961. On 16 February 2015
Judge Ingram sentenced him to nine months’ imprisonment. He now appeals that sentence.

Facts

[2] In the early afternoon of 20 November 2014, Mr Hinton was driving on a rural property in Thorn Road in Tauranga when he saw the victim riding his motorcycle on the property. The vehicles crossed paths. Mr Hinton then put his car into reverse and accelerated straight towards the victim who, thinking he was about to be hit, stepped back from his motorcycle. Mr Hinton’s car hit the motorcycle causing it to fall into a fence although it was not damaged as a result of being hit. The victim was uninjured.

[3] In explanation Mr Hinton said he “just lost it” when he saw the victim. (Both men appear to be embroiled in a wider dispute involving other members of the victim’s family). Mr Hinton admitted to reversing aggressively towards the victim but says he mis-timed braking on the gravel and hit the motorcycle.

[4] Mr Hinton is 29 years old and has a small number of previous convictions, including another for assault with a blunt instrument. He has not previously been sentenced to imprisonment.

Sentencing in the District Court

[5] After canvassing the facts of the matter Judge Ingram observed the highly dangerous nature of the offending and noted that it was only the reflexes of the victim that meant that he had not been seriously injured.

[6] Because the pre-sentence report had not recommended an electronically monitored sentence due to the unavailability of a suitable address, the Judge considered that imprisonment was the only available option. He expressed the view that previous sentences of supervision had been unsuccessful and said that a

community-based sentence was inappropriate due to Mr Hinton’s poor motivation to address the factors giving rise to his offending, namely his problems with anger, his continued use of drugs and alcohol and his unmanaged mental health issues.

[7] The Judge also noted that although Mr Hinton had engaged in a restorative justice conference, it had been unsuccessful, largely due to Mr Hinton’s behaviour during the conference.

[8] Judge Ingram adopted a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment. The aggravating features of the offending…

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 Hinton v Police

Details

AGLC: Hinton v Police [2015] NZHC 560
Case: [2015] NZHC 560
Decision Date: 25 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jesse Paul Hinton was convicted of assault with a blunt instrument, specifically a car, under section 202C of the Crimes Act 1961. The court sentenced him to nine months' imprisonment. Mr Hinton appealed this sentence. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was an error in law and if it was manifestly excessive, or if there was another appropriate sentence that should have been imposed. The court found no error in the sentence imposed by the District Court. The starting point of 12 months' imprisonment was deemed appropriate given the nature of the offence and the potential for serious harm. The court was satisfied that the sentencing judge considered all relevant factors and appropriately declined to impose a community-based sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The reasoning behind the court's decision was that the District Court judge had taken into account all relevant factors, including the highly dangerous nature of the offence, the potential for serious harm, and Mr Hinton's history of offending. The court found no error in the judge's approach to sentencing or in the starting point adopted. The decision to decline a community-based sentence was also upheld, given Mr Hinton's previous unsuccessful attempts at rehabilitation and his failure to engage in a restorative justice conference. The court found that the sentence was within the available range, as confirmed by other cases involving similar offending. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders