Houghton v Police - [2012] NZHC 1357

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2012-470-000020 [2012] NZHC 1357

BETWEEN PETER WILLIAM HOUGHTON Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 15 June 2012

Appearances: A C Balme for Appellant
N Belton for Respondent

Judgment: 15 June 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
Copy to: Tony Balme Law, Tauranga

HOUGHTON V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC TAU CRI-2012-470-000020 [15 June 2012]

Introduction

[1] Mr Houghton pleaded guilty to one charge of robbery and one charge of cultivating cannabis. Judge Moran sentenced him to two and a half years’ imprisonment. Mr Houghton appeals against that sentence as manifestly excessive.

Background

[2] On 17 January this year at about 8.30 in the morning Mr Houghton entered a pharmacy in the Bureta Shopping Centre. He was wearing a mask to disguise his identity. There was only one pharmacy attendant. Mr Houghton approached her and lifted a sign to tell her what he wanted. It was written in black marker pen on cardboard. The signed stated: “Don’t hit the alarm” and “put all your benzos, opiates and liquid sleepers in the bag”. Mr Houghton approached the assistant, opened the bag and she, fearing for her safety, did what he wanted and put two bottles of Diazepam and two to four bottles of Hypam into the bag. Mr Houghton closed the bag and walked out. He was, however, seen leaving the premises and running to his car which was identified.

[3] At 6.15 p.m. the same day the police executed a search warrant at Mr Houghton’s home. There they found demand notes and, in his wallet, a note to a doctor stating if that he did not get a change in his prescription, his brain was returning to past cycles and he could rob a chemist or worse. The car identified as having been used in the course of the robbery was also at Mr Houghton’s premises. At the rear of the address the police found a piece of a mask that it was believed had been worn. The mask had fallen to one side of a drum where a fire had been started.

[4] In the course of the search of Mr Houghton’s home the police also located a small cannabis growing set-up. This included lights, a fan, a temperature timer and three cannabis plants. One plant was approximately 80 centimetres high while the other two were seedlings. There was about a gram of loose cannabis plant material.

Mr Houghton initially denied any involvement in the robbery but entered guilty pleas to both charges on his fourth appearance.

The District Court sentence

[5] In sentencing Mr Houghton Judge Moran took a starting point of three years’ imprisonment for the robbery. He then applied a full 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea incorporating the remorse that Mr Houghton had expressed. That reduced the starting sentence to two years three months’ imprisonment for that charge.

[6] In relation to the charge of cultivating cannabis the Judge took a starting…

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 Houghton 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: [2012] NZHC 1357
Decision Date: 15 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Houghton v Police involved an appeal by Mr Houghton against the sentence imposed by the District Court for a charge of robbery and cultivating cannabis. The District Court had sentenced Mr Houghton to two and a half years’ imprisonment, which he deemed manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand Tauranga Registry.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive. Mr Houghton’s counsel argued that the Judge did not adequately account for mitigating factors such as remorse and steps taken towards rehabilitation, which should have warranted a lesser sentence. Conversely, the Police argued that the sentence was within an acceptable range, considering the seriousness of the crime and the strength of the evidence against Mr Houghton.

The Court considered the arguments and examined the sentencing principles, particularly those related to the credit for a guilty plea and the mitigating factors of remorse and rehabilitation efforts. The Court noted that the Judge had acknowledged Mr Houghton’s remorse and efforts at rehabilitation but had incorporated these factors into the 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea. The Court found that the sentence could have been arrived at through several principled methods, including applying a reduction for rehabilitation and remorse before the credit for the guilty plea. The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

In summary, the Court upheld the District Court’s sentence, finding it to be within the appropriate range given the circumstances of the case. The issue of home detention was deemed irrelevant in light of the Court’s findings on the sentence’s appropriateness.

Orders