Hyland v Police - [2024] NZHC 3768

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-645

[2024] NZHC 3768

BETWEEN
MATTHEW DAVID HYLAND

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 December 2024

Appearances:

S Kim for Appellant

F Ganchi for Respondent

Judgment:

10 December 2024

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Public Defence Service, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

HYLAND v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 3768 [10 December 2024]

Introduction

[1] Matthew Hyland appeals against an end sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment imposed on charges of:1

(a)two counts of burglary;2

(b)unlawfully taking a motor vehicle;3

(c)using a document for pecuniary advantage;4

(d)aggravated assault;5

(e)theft (under $500);6

(f)resisting police;7 and

(g)possession of methamphetamine.8

[2]Mr Hyland appeals on the basis that:

(a)the global starting point adopted in the District Court of three years and four months’ imprisonment was too high;

(b)there was a failure to give due weight to the efforts in rehabilitation; and

1      New Zealand Police v Hyland [2024] NZDC 27501.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a). Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 226(1)(a). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 228(1)(b). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 192(1)(c). Maximum penalty: three years’ imprisonment.
6      Sections 219 and 223(d). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment.
7      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 23(a). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment or $2,000 fine.
8      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty: six months’ imprisonment or
$1,000 fine.

(c)there was a failure to give due weight to Mr Hyland’s personal circumstances leading up to the offending that could be attributed as s 27 factors.

[3] The Crown opposes the appeal and says that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive, although acknowledging that the uplift of 22 months for the offending other than the burglary could be described as stern.

Background

[4] On the afternoon of 30 March 2024, Mr Hyland went to a property in Grey Lynn which was the home of a person known to him. He went inside the house and took the keys to the victim’s vehicle which he then used to take the victim’s car. This led to a charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle.

[5] On the morning of 3 April 2024, Mr Hyland was with an associate at a property in Dairy Flat. He was told by the occupier to leave — he did not leave immediately. He took items from the property. In the District Court decision, the Judge recorded that Mr Hyland took a motor vehicle and other items from the property. It is now accepted that was not correct. In fact, Mr Hyland took items which were his own items and put them into the motor vehicle he had unlawfully taken on 30 March and was using at the time. The charge in respect of the 3 April offending was a charge of burglary.

[6] The Judge at sentencing was led to believe that the 3 April offending involved a second unlawful entry and…

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 Hyland 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: [2024] NZHC 3768
Decision Date: 10 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew David Hyland appeals against a sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment imposed by the District Court on various charges, including burglary, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, and aggravated assault. The appeal focuses on the global starting point being too high, insufficient recognition of rehabilitation efforts, and failure to consider personal circumstances that could be attributed as section 27 factors. The Crown opposes the appeal, arguing the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The High Court finds that the District Court proceeded on an incorrect factual basis regarding the second burglary, which should have led to a lower starting point. The High Court reduces the sentence by three months to 24 months’ imprisonment, considering the less serious factual scenario of the second burglary. The Court grants leave for the appellant to apply for the sentence to be commuted to home detention if a suitable address can be obtained, likely a residential rehabilitative facility.

The Court's reasoning highlights the importance of accurate factual basis in sentencing. The appeal was allowed due to the District Court's reliance on incorrect facts, leading to an overall end sentence that was disproportionate to the gravity and features of the offending. The Court emphasizes that while sentencing is not a science, appellate courts will intervene if the end sentence is outside the range available to the sentencing judge. This decision underscores the need for accurate and comprehensive factual information in sentencing to ensure just outcomes.

Orders