Horridge v Police - [2018] NZHC 2589

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-404-000265

[2018] NZHC 2589

BETWEEN
GLENN ANTHONY HORRIDGE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 2 October 2018

Counsel:

HB Leabourn for Appellant HG Max for Respondent

Judgment:

4 October 2018

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 4 October 2018 at 11 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
HB Leabourn, Auckland.
Crown Law, Wellington.

HORRIDGE v POLICE [2018] NZHC 2589 [4 October 2018]

The appeal

[1] Mr Horridge appeals his 30-month term of imprisonment on the basis it is manifestly excessive.1 He contends Judge Ronayne adopted too high a starting point, and failed to have adequate regard to the totality principle.

Facts

[2]Mr Horridge committed multiple offences, best explained in sets.

First set: burglary, interfering with a boat, breaching bail and attempting to pervert the course of justice

[3] On 8 February 2016, Mr Horridge drove to a building site with another. The pair unlatched the fence, entered the property and stole plywood leaning against the house. The next day, Mr Horridge and another stopped outside a property where a boat was parked. Mr Horridge’s associate jumped onto the boat. The complainant confronted him. He ran away. The complainant also confronted Mr Horridge, who drove off.

[4]On 29 August 2016, Mr Horridge failed to answer District Court bail.

[5] Between July and November 2017, Mr Horridge approached his neighbour’s sister, R. Mr Horridge repeatedly asked her to give false alibi evidence in relation to the offences at [3]. Mr Horridge provided R with a letter setting out the proposed evidence. R went to the Police prior to trial.

Second set: driving under the influence causing injury

[6] On 16 October 2016, Mr Horridge was driving. He had been using both methamphetamine and cannabis. Mr Horridge drove into a parked car in the early hours of the morning. His passenger, a friend, was not wearing a seatbelt. She was badly injured. She was hospitalised for four weeks, suffered two broken ankles, a shattered foot plate, a broken left shin and scarring. Mr Horridge told Police he had been drinking bourbon.

1 R v Horridge [2018] NZDC 14613.

Third set: unlawfully interfering with a boat and theft

[7] On 13 January 2018, Mr Horridge and two others approached a boat parked outside a property. Mr Horridge acted as lookout while his associates removed the boat’s fuel line and fuel tank—and stole them.

The Judge’s approach

[8]The Judge dealt with each set individually, in this manner:

Set 1

·     Perverting the

course of justice; unlawful

interference with a ship;

·     Burglary; and

·     Failure to answer bail.

Set 2

·   Driving under influence

causing injury.

Set 3

·   Theft; and

·   Unlawful

interference with a ship.

Lead offence identified

Perverting the

course of justice

Starting point

20 months

15 months

6 months

Uplift for other offending

3 months

-

-

Guilty plea discount

5 months (30%)

3 ½ months (23%) including…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Horridge v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NZHC 2589
Decision Date: 4 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Glenn Anthony Horridge appeals against his 30-month term of imprisonment, arguing it is manifestly excessive. He contends that Judge Ronayne adopted too high a starting point and failed to have adequate regard to the totality principle. The facts of the case involve multiple offences committed by Mr Horridge, which are grouped into three sets. The first set includes burglary, interfering with a boat, breaching bail, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The second set involves driving under the influence causing injury, and the third set includes unlawfully interfering with a boat and theft. The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the starting point adopted by Judge Ronayne was too high and whether the totality principle was adequately considered. The court held that while the 20-month starting point was appropriate, the totality principle was not adequately considered, especially in relation to the third set of offences. As a result, the appeal is allowed in relation to the cumulative three-month term, which is quashed. The resulting sentence is 27 months’ imprisonment.

The court's reasoning was that while Mr Horridge's offending was serious, the totality principle needed to be adequately considered. The court noted that the starting point of 20 months was appropriate, but the totality principle was not adequately addressed. The court found that a term of 27 months’ imprisonment was appropriate for all offending. The court emphasised the need to ensure that offences committed on separate occasions do not result in a disproportionately severe sentence simply because they are sentenced together. The court held that a term of 27 months’ imprisonment was appropriate for all offending, and the appeal is allowed in relation to the cumulative three-month term, which is quashed. The resulting sentence is 27 months’ imprisonment.

Orders