Jarden v Police - [2017] NZHC 2539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2017-409-000077 [2017] NZHC 2539

BETWEEN
CRAIG MAURICE JARDEN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 11 October 2017

Appearances:

J Lucas for the Appellant
C J Bernhardt for the Respondent

Judgment:

18 October 2017

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] Mr Jarden was sentenced on 13 June 2017 to 18 months’ imprisonment for charges of male assaults female, breach of release conditions, possession of methamphetamine and intentional damage.1 He now appeals that decision.

Facts

[2] On 30 March 2015, Mr Jarden was sentenced to two years and five months’ imprisonment for other offending. The end release date for that earlier offending was in July 2017. He was released from prison on parole and on pre-release conditions on 6 September 2016.

[3] On 23 November 2016, Mr Jarden and the victim, his then partner, got into an argument at the supermarket. They left in their car and drove to a nearby street.

1 Police v Jarden [2017] NZDC 12614.

Mr Jarden pulled the victim’s head down onto his lap and punched her four to five times to the face and head with a closed fist. He then pushed her against the car door before opening the passenger door and throwing her cell phone outside. He then pushed her out of the car, causing her head and upper body to hit the ground.

[4] After a few minutes, Mr Jarden picked up the victim and they returned to their home address. In their sleepout at that address, Mr Jarden approached the victim from behind and punched her, striking her on the side of the head. The force of the punch caused her head to hit the door and she fell to the ground. He then left in his car. The victim sustained bruising to her face, head and arms.

[5] On 27 November 2016, Mr Jarden and victim were in the sleepout. An argument began when she went to leave. He pulled her head towards him and punched her on the nose with a closed fist. The force caused her to fall back onto the bed. Mr Jarden climbed on top of her and pinned her down. He turned her over so she was face down and pushed her face into the bed. He told her, “Keep screaming, no one around here cares”. She managed to free herself and flee. The victim sustained a bleeding and swollen nose.

[6] On 22 January 2017, Mr Jarden went to the home of a friend of the first victim. He walked up the driveway and threw a small rock through the back window of the friend’s car. He then left.

[7] On 24 January 2017, the police arrested Mr Jarden. A search of his back pack was then carried out. It contained 0.48 grams of methamphetamine in a point bag and 150 empty point bags. Mr Jarden admitted that the bag was his.

[8] As a result of this…

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 Jarden v Police

Details

AGLC: Jarden v Police [2017] NZHC 2539
Case: [2017] NZHC 2539
Decision Date: 18 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Craig Maurice Jarden appeals against his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for charges of male assaults female, breach of release conditions, possession of methamphetamine and intentional damage. The appeal hinges on the proportionality of the uplift for personal aggravating factors, the appropriateness of the discount for guilty pleas, and the appropriateness of a cumulative versus a concurrent sentence. The High Court found that the uplift for personal aggravating factors was excessive, resulting in double punishment, and that the discount for guilty pleas was appropriate given the tactical delay in entering the plea. The court also found that a concurrent sentence would have been inappropriate, as the latest offending was not part of a series of connected offences. The court quashed the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment on the charge of male assaults female and imposed a sentence of 13 months' imprisonment instead. The sentences for the other charges remain concurrent with each other and the sentence on the male assaults female charge but are cumulative upon the sentences imposed on 30 March 2015. The court orders Mr Jarden to pay reparation of $340.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was adjusted to reflect the court's findings. The new sentence of 13 months' imprisonment for the male assaults female charge is imposed cumulatively upon the sentences for the earlier offending. The sentences for the other charges remain concurrent with each other and the sentence on the male assaults female charge but are cumulative upon the sentences imposed on 30 March 2015. The court also orders Mr Jarden to pay reparation of $340.

Orders