Horscroft v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2021-443-31

[2021] NZHC 2816

BETWEEN
BRANDON MAXWELL HORSCROFT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 20 October 2021

Appearances:

N P Bourke for Appellant

L A Blencowe for Respondent

Judgment:

20 October 2021

RESULTS JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[1] Mr Horscroft, who prefers to be known as Mr Winter, appeals his convictions on charges of assault on a person with whom he was in a family relationship.1

[2] The appeal is allowed and the convictions quashed. I will provide reasons at a later date.

[3] Mr Winter is serving a sentence of four and a half months’ home detention. In addition to the two assault charges subject to appeal, he was sentenced on a charge of breach of a protection order, to which he had pleaded guilty.

[4] In light of the outcome of the conviction appeal, I quash the sentence of four and a half months’ home detention and in its place impose a sentence of one months’ home detention on the charge of breach of a protection order. In all other respects the sentence of home detention remains unchanged.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 194A, maximum penalty 2 years’ imprisonment.

HORSCROFT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2816 [20 October 2021]

Isac J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, New Plymouth for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Horscroft v Police was heard before Justice Isac. The appellant, Brandon Maxwell Horscroft, also known as Mr Winter, appeals against his convictions for assault on a person with whom he was in a family relationship. The appeal concerns the validity of his convictions and the sentence imposed on him.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the convictions were valid and, if not, what impact this had on the sentence imposed. The court had to determine whether the appeal was well-founded and whether the convictions should be quashed. If the convictions were quashed, the court also needed to determine the appropriate sentence for the charge of breach of a protection order.

Justice Isac allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions. The court's reasoning was that the convictions were not valid, and as a result, the original sentence of four and a half months’ home detention was also quashed. In its place, the court imposed a sentence of one month’s home detention for the charge of breach of a protection order, while maintaining the other aspects of the original sentence unchanged. Justice Isac noted that further reasons would be provided at a later date.

The final orders of the court were the quashing of the convictions for assault and the imposition of a new sentence of one month’s home detention for the charge of breach of a protection order. The rest of the sentence remained as originally imposed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established