Hore v Police - [2015] NZHC 2313

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2015-412-000030 [2015] NZHC 2313

BETWEEN
ANDREW KEITH HORE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 22 September 2015

Appearances:

D P Robinson for Appellant
C Power for Respondent

Judgment:

23 September 2015

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the District Court declining to grant the appellant, Mr Hore, a discharge without conviction. Mr Hore had pleaded guilty to one charge of supplying a firearm to an unlicensed person and on
17 September 2015, he was convicted and fined $400 plus Court costs of $130.1

[2] The appeal is advanced on the ground that the District Court Judge erred in fact and law in refusing to grant a discharge without conviction. More specifically, he says the Judge failed to properly weigh:

(a) the aggravating and mitigating factors;

(b)the consequences of conviction (and the likelihood of the same occurring); and

1 Police v Hore [2015] NZDC 18502.

HORE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 2313 [23 September 2015]

(c) the seriousness of the offence.

The offending

[3] The offence occurred on 2 May 2015 when Mr Hore and a number of his associates met on a rural property in Central Otago to go duck shooting. One member of the shooting party was Mr Daniel Parker, who did not hold a firearms licence because it had been revoked in 2012.

[4] Mr Hore brought two firearms to the mai mai, one of which was a shotgun, which he gave to Mr Parker to use for the purpose of duck shooting that day. It is that action which gave rise to the charge.

[5] However, it is what happened subsequently which brought this matter to the attention of the police. The duck shooting party, having spent the day at one pond shooting ducks and consuming alcohol, eventually decided to move to another pond located on the same property. They did so in an ATV vehicle. However, while travelling on the ATV, three members of the party and a number of the firearms fell from the back of the vehicle, resulting in one of the shotguns unintentionally discharging and causing a serious wound to the right arm of Mr Parker.

[6] Mr Hore was later spoken to by police. He admitted ownership of the firearms and also admitted supplying the firearm to Mr Parker. He said he did not know that Mr Parker’s firearms licence had been revoked. However, he also accepts that at no point did he check whether Mr Parker was in fact the holder of a current firearms licence.

[7] Mr Hore was then charged with supplying a firearm to an unlicensed person, and Mr Parker was charged with being in possession of a shotgun while his licence was revoked. For completeness, two other members of the party were also charged with being in possession of a shotgun while not the holder of a firearms licence.

Approach on appeal

[8] Section 106 of the Sentencing…

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 Hore v Police

Details

AGLC: Hore v Police [2015] NZHC 2313
Case: [2015] NZHC 2313
Decision Date: 23 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hore v Police is an appeal against the decision of the District Court declining to grant Mr Hore, the appellant, a discharge without conviction. Mr Hore had pleaded guilty to one charge of supplying a firearm to an unlicensed person. He was convicted and fined $400 plus court costs of $130. The appeal is advanced on the ground that the District Court Judge erred in declining to grant a discharge without conviction. The court had to decide whether the District Court Judge properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, the consequences of conviction, and the seriousness of the offence. The court found that the District Court Judge did not err in declining to grant a discharge without conviction. The court found that the gravity of the offending was low to moderate and the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders