Jackson v Police - [2019] NZHC 281

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2018-419-000070

[2019] NZHC 281

BETWEEN
CAJUN POUTU JACKSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 21 February 2019

Appearances:

R Quin for the Appellant B Vaili for the Respondent

Judgment:

21 February 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Rob Quin, Barrister, Hamilton Almao Douch, Hamilton

JACKSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 281 [21 February 2019]

Introduction

[1] Mr Jackson appeals the sentence of Judge Burnett in the Hamilton District Court, given on 21 December 2018.1

[2] He pleaded guilty to one charge of breaching a protection order.2 The complainant in this matter is Mr Jackson’s former partner, with whom he has four children.

[3] Mr Jackson breached the order by removing two of their children from their grandmother’s house without informing the complainant and not returning them for several days, this amounting to psychological abuse of the complainant.

[4] Judge Burnett sentenced Mr Jackson to 16 months’ imprisonment. Mr Jackson appeals on the basis the starting point was too high and/or the uplift the Judge applied was “double counting”. Mr Jackson says this resulted in a sentence that was manifestly excessive.

Background

[5] The complainant has a parenting order giving her custody of the children. That order stipulated that Mr Jackson was to have only supervised access. The protection order was made after Mr Jackson assaulted the complainant and took two of their children in 2015.

[6] On 7 July 2018, the complainant dropped the children at their grandmother’s house, during which it seems Mr Jackson was to have access to the children. The complainant told her not to let him have any unsupervised access.

[7] On 11 July 2018, the complainant became aware that Mr Jackson had two of the children with him. She was afraid for them given Mr Jackson’s history, leading to the terms of the parenting order.

1 Police v Jackson [2018] NZDC 26963.
2 Domestic Violence Act 1995, ss 19(1)(d), 49(1)(b) and 49(3).

[8] Both the complainant and members of Mr Jackson’s family attempted to contact Mr Jackson to find out where he and the children were. They could not contact him. She then contacted the Police.

[9] On the morning of 12 July 2018, Mr Jackson called the complainant and verbally abused her, as he had discovered she had contacted the Police. The complainant told him the children needed to be returned to their grandmother’s house. He did not react well and verbally abused her further. She still did not know where the children were.

[10] Mr Jackson eventually returned the children to their grandmother’s on the evening of 14 July 2018.

Proceedings and judgment in the District Court

[11] Mr Jackson appeared in the Hamilton District Court on 16 July 2018 in respect of one charge of breaching a protection order between 11 July and 14 July 2018. No plea was entered and he was remanded on bail to appear on 1 August 2018.

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.

Continue reading Jackson v Police

Details

AGLC: Jackson v Police [2019] NZHC 281
Case: [2019] NZHC 281
Decision Date: 21 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jackson v Police involved an appeal against a sentence imposed by the Hamilton District Court. Mr Jackson had breached a protection order by removing two of his children from their grandmother's house without informing the complainant and not returning them for several days, which amounted to psychological abuse of the complainant. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the starting point for the sentence was too high and whether the uplift applied for Mr Jackson's previous convictions constituted double counting, leading to a manifestly excessive sentence. The court considered the nature of the breach, Mr Jackson's history of breaching protection orders, and his other family violence-related convictions. After examining relevant case law and the specific circumstances of this case, the court concluded that while the starting point and uplift were stern, they were not outside the range available to the sentencing judge. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence of 16 months' imprisonment, noting that Mr Jackson's inability to comply with court orders was a significant issue that needed addressing.

Orders