Jeffries v The Queen - [2013] NZCA 274

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA191/2012
CA194/2012
CA201/2012
CA204/2012
[2013] NZCA 274

BETWEEN

WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES
MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES
DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM
LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT

Appellants

AND

THE QUEEN
Respondent

CA225/2012 CA226/2012 CA227/2012 CA228/2012
BETWEEN	THE QUEEN Appellant
AND	WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT Respondents

Court:	Randerson, Wild and French JJ
Counsel:	J A Farmer QC, M A Corlett, D H O’Leary and M A Sissons for Jeffries, Reeves, Graham and Bryant C R Carruthers QC and D R La Hood for the Crown
Judgment:	2 July 2013 at 10:00am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeals by the Solicitor-General (CA225/2012, CA226/2012, CA227/2012 and CA228/2012) are allowed.
BThe following sentences are substituted for the sentences of community work imposed in the High Court:
William Patrick Jeffries is sentenced to eight months home detention and 250 hours community work.
Michael Howard Reeves is sentenced to nine months home detention and 250 hours community work.
Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham is sentenced to six months home detention and 200 hours community work.
Lawrence Roland Valpy Bryant is sentenced to six months home detention.
CThe orders for reparation against each of Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham and Lawrence Roland Valpy Bryant in the amount of $100,000 remain.
DThe sentences of home detention are to be served at the respective addresses identified in the reports prepared for this Court by the Department of Corrections in June 2013.
EThe standard conditions for home detention under s 80C(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002 are to apply.
F The sentences of home detention and community work are to commence 14 days after the date of issue of this judgment or, if an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is filed within that period, the sentences are to commence 14 days after the date of final disposition of the application for leave to appeal or 14 days after the date of final disposition of any appeal if leave is granted.
GThe respondents must be at their respective addresses from the time of the commencement of the sentences and remain there pending the arrival of a probation officer and an officer of the company responsible for connecting the electronic monitoring system.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

In our interim judgment delivered on 30 May 2013[1] we found that the sentences imposed in the High Court on the respondents were manifestly inadequate. We deferred determining the final sentences until we had obtained updated reports under s 26A of the Sentencing Act 2002 on the availability of suitable addresses for home detention purposes.
[1]Jeffries v R [2013] NZCA 188.
Those reports have now been received and have been sent to counsel. Submissions were invited as to the ability of the respondents to complete the proposed sentences of home detention and community work.
The updated reports show there is no issue about the suitability of the addresses of any of the…

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 Jeffries v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jeffries v The Queen [2013] NZCA 274
Case: [2013] NZCA 274
Decision Date: 2 July 2013 at 10:00am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard appeals concerning the sentences imposed on William Patrick Jeffries, Michael Howard Reeves, Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham, and Lawrence Roland Valpy Bryant, collectively referred to as the respondents. The appeals were against the sentences imposed by the High Court and also included an appeal by the Solicitor-General against the sentences. The core dispute centred on the adequacy of the sentences initially imposed, with the Court of Appeal considering whether they were manifestly inadequate. The legal issues before the court included whether the sentences imposed were appropriate in relation to the crimes committed and whether the conditions of home detention were suitable for each respondent.

The court found that the initial sentences imposed by the High Court were manifestly inadequate and substituted them with sentences involving home detention and community work. The reasoning of the court was grounded in the principle that prison sentences should have been the starting point, given the nature of the crimes. The court found that the discounts applied by the sentencing judge were excessive. The final sentences were tailored to balance the need for punishment with the respondents' personal circumstances. For instance, Mr. Bryant's deteriorating health precluded him from performing community work, while Sir Douglas Graham's health required special considerations for his daily exercise regime. The sentences were adjusted to ensure they were both proportionate and practical, taking into account the maximum allowable duration for home detention.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeals by the Solicitor-General and imposed new sentences. William Patrick Jeffries was sentenced to eight months home detention and 250 hours of community work, Michael Howard Reeves to nine months home detention and 250 hours of community work, Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham to six months home detention and 200 hours of community work, and Lawrence Roland Valpy Bryant to six months home detention. The reparation orders against Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham and Lawrence Roland Valpy Bryant remained unchanged at $100,000 each. The sentences of home detention were to commence 14 days after the date of the judgment, with specific conditions for home detention applying as per the Sentencing Act 2002.

Orders