Hough v Police - [2015] NZHC 2691

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

CRI-2015-483-19 [2015] NZHC 2691

BETWEEN
RONALD HOUGH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 14 October 2015

Appearances:

D M Goodlet for Appellant
N A Refoy-Butler for Respondent

Judgment:

30 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J

I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is
4.20 pm on the 30th day of October 2015

HOUGH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 2691 [30 October 2015]

Introduction

[1] Following a Judge-alone trial in the District Court in Whanganui

Mr Ronald Hough was convicted of the theft of 10 heads of cattle.1 On each of the

10 charges the District Court Judge sentenced Mr Hough to one month imprisonment, the terms being cumulative. In addition to the sentence of 10 months imprisonment on the theft charges Mr Hough was sentenced to one month imprisonment for threatening behaviour, a charge to which he had pleaded guilty. That term of imprisonment was to be served concurrently with the 10 month term of imprisonment for theft.

[2] Mr Hough appeals his convictions for theft and the sentence of 10 months imprisonment.

Factual background

[3] Since 1947 John Churton has leased two small farm blocks of Māori owned land near the Whanganui River in the Jerusalem area. Mr Churton does not live on the blocks.

[4] Mr Churton’s leased land is next to a family farm operated by the Aorangi Whānau Trust (the Trust). The Trust was established by Mr Hough’s family. There are three trustees: Mr Hough’s wife, his oldest son and oldest daughter. Mr Hough described his role in the Trust as being to “coordinate mostly all the sale of the stock” but he did not have a “hands on” role in the farm itself. Mr Hough lived on the farm.

[5] On 18 December 2012, Mr Churton received a phone call from a neighbour and friend of some 30 years. The neighbour had been moving his sheep on the road when a transport truck stopped. Because he was inquisitive, the neighbour checked the load and saw approximately 10 cattle. He spoke to the truck driver and established the cattle were being driven to the sale yards. The neighbour, being aware that Mr Churton had been losing cattle, contacted Mr Churton to suggest he
might like to visit the sale yards to check the cattle were not his.

1 New Zealand Police v Hough [2015] NZDC 7699 (the judgment).

[6] The next morning, Mr Churton went to the Stratford sale yards with his farm worker Brendon White. He located the 10 cattle in pens awaiting sale which he recognised as his. In fact three of the cows were not strictly Mr Churton’s. He had given two cows to his farm worker, Mr White, but they continued to graze on Mr Churton’s land. The third cow was a pet cow called Chocolate. The cow had been given to a friend some eight years earlier but also was being grazed on Mr Churton’s block. The cow…

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 Hough 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: [2015] NZHC 2691
Decision Date: 30 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald Hough appeals his convictions for theft of cattle and his sentence. Mr Hough was convicted of arranging the transportation of 10 heads of cattle from a farm to a sale yard with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of their property. The cattle were identified as belonging to the Aorangi Whānau Trust by their NAIT tags. Mr Hough was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with a sentence of one month for threatening behaviour. The High Court must decide whether there was inadequate evidence to establish the mental element of the theft charges and whether the sentence was appropriate. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, as the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Hough knew the cattle belonged to the owner at the time he arranged their transportation. The sentence appeal was allowed, as the starting point of 10 months imprisonment was too high, given the time elapsed since the last conviction and the value of the stolen property. The Court substitutes an overall sentence of five months imprisonment.

Orders