Jackson v Police - [2014] NZHC 2187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-435-000007 [2014] NZHC 2187

APRIL LORNA MARIE JACKSON

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 9 September 2014

Counsel:

J M Elliott for Appellant
M L Wong for Respondent

Judgment:

10 September 2014

JUDGMENT OF WILLIMAS J

[1] Ms Jackson, 20, pleaded guilty to two charges of assault1 and one charge of conspiring to defeat the course of justice.2 On 24 July 2014 she was sentenced to
10 months’ imprisonment by Judge Tompkins.3

[2] She now appeals that sentence on the grounds Judge Tompkins should have

imposed a sentence of home detention and as such, the sentence of 10 months’

imprisonment was manifestly excessive.

1      One charge of assault pursuant to s 196 of the Crimes Act 1961, carrying a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment; one charge of assault pursuant to s 9 of the Summary Offences Act
1981, carrying a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $4,000.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 116. This offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
3      R v Jackson DC Masterton CRI 2014-035-000703, 24 July 2014. On that date Miss Jackson was also for sentence on one charge of breach of community work for which she was convicted and discharged. Her extant supervision sentence was cancelled in response to an application to that effect.

JACKSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2187 [10 September 2014]

Background

[3] On 16 May 2014 Ms Jackson was walking the streets, drunk, after leaving a house she was visiting. She came across a group of four males who were cleaning bottles out of a car they were driving. Ms Jackson says the males said something to upset her, and she began kicking the bottles.

[4] She picked up a bottle and threw it at the head of one of the males. It missed, but Ms Jackson’s associate (her partner at the time) punched that male in the head. The victim’s friends tried to break up the fight, and Ms Jackson grabbed one of them and pushed him into a bush causing him to fall over.

[5] In the days following the two assaults, Ms Jackson was interviewed twice by police. She was on bail for the assaults. During those interviews she stated that her partner was not present during the assault. She said he was with a friend of hers that night, and the friend confirmed that story to police. The police then obtained cell phone records that show Ms Jackson and her friend agreed to provide a false alibi for Ms Jackson’s partner.

Judge Tompkins’ decision

[6] Judge Tompkins adopted a starting point of 16 months’ imprisonment on the conspiracy charge by reference to the case of R v Clarke in which the Court of Appeal upheld a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment for similar offending. He said:4

[9] It is clear from the material before the Court that Ms Jackson and her associate set out to craft a story…

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 [2014] NZHC 2187
Case: [2014] NZHC 2187
Decision Date: 10 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Jackson v Police, Ms Jackson appealed against the 10-month imprisonment sentence imposed on her by Judge Tompkins, arguing it was manifestly excessive and that a sentence of home detention should have been imposed. Ms Jackson pleaded guilty to assault and conspiring to defeat the course of justice. She was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment for the conspiracy and one month imprisonment on each of the two assault charges. On appeal, Ms Jackson argued that Judge Tompkins should have imposed a sentence of home detention instead of imprisonment and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court examined the legal principles governing appeals from the District Court to the High Court and the exercise of discretion in sentencing. The appeal was dismissed on both grounds. The court found that the sentence was within the permissible range, and Judge Tompkins did not make an error in imposing the sentence. The court also found that the judge did not make an error in exercising his discretion to impose imprisonment over home detention, considering the appellant’s previous non-compliance with community-based sentences and other relevant factors.

Orders