Jacomb v Police - [2015] NZHC 114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-000363 [2015] NZHC 114

BETWEEN
VERONICA JACOMB

Appellant

AND

NEW ZELAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 3 February 2015

Appearances:

Appellant in person
M J Hammer for Respondent

Judgment:

10 February 2015

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 10 February 2015 at 11.00 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Copy to: Appellant

VERONICA JACOMB v NEW ZELAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 114 [10 February 2015]

Introduction

[1] On 29 October 2014, Veronica Jacomb was sentenced to 80 hours community work and ordered to pay reparation of $1,000 on a charge on intentionally damaging a motor vehicle. She now appeals against the sentence of reparation on the basis that the Police have not established that reparation in the sum of $1,000 is appropriate.

Approach on appeal

[2] The appellant appeals under s 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Section 250(2) provides that the High Court must allow the appeal if satisfied that for any reason there is an error in the sentence imposed on conviction and a different sentence should be imposed. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that s 250(2) was not intended to change the approach taken to sentence appeals under the now repealed s 385(3) of the Crimes Act 1961 and s 121(3) of the Summary Proceedings
Act 1957.1 According, the appellant must demonstrate an error on the part of the

District Court.2 An appeal is “not generally a second shot at sentencing.”3

District Court proceedings

[3] Following an incident on 28 September 2013 at Glendene, Ms Jacomb was charged with intentionally damaging a motor vehicle, registration number BQR475, the property of Kaycee Hollings. To this charge she pleaded not guilty. Following a defended hearing on 23 July 2014, Judge Treston found the charge proved. After the defended hearing, the matter was adjourned on several occasions while the issue of reparation was clarified. Finally, on 29 October 2014, Ms Jacomb was sentenced to
80 hours community work and ordered to pay reparation in the sum of $1,000 to

Kaycee Hollings at a rate to be determined by the Registrar.

[4] On sentencing, Ms Jacomb was represented by counsel, Ms B Murphy. Ms Murphy accepted, for the purposes of sentencing, that the reparation figure should be $1,000. She advised the Court that, as a result of other issues, there was
likely to be an appeal against conviction. There is, however, no appeal against

1      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [26].
2      R v Shipton [2007] 2 NZLR 218 (CA) at [138].
3      Polyanszky v R [2011] NZCA 4 at [17] to [18] per Chambers J.

conviction. Because of the way the case developed in the District Court there was no disputed facts hearing about the reparation and sentencing proceeded on an agreed figure of $1,000.

Appellant’s submissions

[5] On appeal Ms Jacomb was not represented by counsel. She did,…

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 Jacomb v Police

Details

AGLC: Jacomb v Police [2015] NZHC 114
Case: [2015] NZHC 114
Decision Date: 10 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Veronica Jacomb appeals against the reparation order made by the District Court, which was to pay $1,000 to the complainant, Kaycee Hollings. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The appellant contends that the Police failed to establish that reparation in the sum of $1,000 is appropriate. The court was required to determine whether the reparation order was made in error and whether a different sentence should be imposed.

The court examined the submissions made by the appellant, which included a website printout showing the car was registered to Ms Hollings' uncle, a printout from the AA of the vehicle history, a photograph of a similar vehicle, the Police booklet of exhibits, and two repair quotes obtained by the Police. The court found that the quotes related to the same car despite the differences in registration numbers and descriptions. The court accepted that the cost of repairs to the car was at least $1,673.25, which is the more recent and lesser quote obtained by the complainant. Given that the reparation order was less than two-thirds of that amount, it could not be questioned on appeal. The reparation order provided a simple and speedy means of compensating the complainant, and the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed. The reparation order of $1,000 to Kaycee Hollings was upheld.

Orders