Ireland v Police HC Rotorua CRI-2011-463-85

[2011] NZHC 2036

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2011-463-85

CONRAD BARRY IRELAND

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         15 December 2011

Counsel:         No appearance for Appellant

S Simmers for Respondent

Judgment:      15 December 2011

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

IRELAND V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC ROT CRI-2011-463-85 15 December 2011

[1]      Mr  Ireland  pleaded  guilty  in  the  District  Court  to  one  charge  of  using threatening language.  The charge arose as a result of his visit to a bank, when he made abusive and threatening comments to a female teller.

[2]      On 12 September 2011 Judge Cooper sentenced Mr Cooper to six months supervision  on  the  condition  that  he  was  to  undertake  such  medical  and/or psychiatric assessments and treatments as the probation officer might direct.[1]    He now appeals against that sentence.  He points out that he spent five days in custody following his arrest.  He contends that that is sufficient punishment for what he did.

[1] New Zealand Police v Ireland DC Rotorua CRI-2011-069-1512, 12 September 2011.

[3]      The  appeal  was  originally  scheduled  to  be  heard  yesterday  at  2.15  pm. During the morning the Registry received a message from Mr Ireland to say that he had no petrol and that he would not be able to travel to Court before today because he was due to receive a payment today that would enable him to purchase petrol.  I asked the Registrar to advise Mr Ireland that I would hear the appeal today at 2 pm. I also asked the Registrar to advise Mr Ireland that if he did not attend, the appeal would be dealt with in his absence.  When the matter was called today, there was no appearance by Mr Ireland, or on his behalf.

[4]      The  Judge  made  it  clear  in  sentencing  Mr  Ireland  that  the  sentence  of supervision was not designed to punish him.   Rather, it was designed to help him avoid coming before the Court again in the future.

[5]      Mr Ireland has several previous convictions for anti-social behaviour.  These include a conviction in 2008 for behaving in a threatening manner, and a charge of assaulting a female.  In addition, he was convicted on two charges of threatening to kill on 26 January 2010.

[6]      In those circumstances the Judge was clearly right to be concerned that Mr Ireland presents as a risk of further similar offending in the future if positive steps are not taken to address the issues that he obviously has.  A sentence of supervision is designed to achieve that purpose.  For that reason, the Judge was plainly entitled to

impose it.

[7]      The sentence is consistent with the principles and purposes of sentencing contained in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002.  Included in these is the need to rehabilitate and re-integrate the offender into the community.

[8]      For  these  reasons  the  appeal  could  never  have  succeeded  and  is  now dismissed.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

Copy to: Appellant