Jones v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2013-463-45 [2013] NZHC 1852

BETWEEN COREY JONES Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Defendant

Hearing: 9 July 2013

Appearances: G Schweizer for Appellant
L Owen for Respondent

Judgment: 24 July 2013

FINAL JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 July 2013 at 4 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

COREY JONES v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 1852 [24 July 2013]

[1] On 9 July 2013, I delivered an interim judgment in which I indicated that I proposed to allow this appeal and impose a sentence of home detention on Mr Jones.[1] I deferred giving final judgment because it was necessary to obtain a report from the EM Bail Assessor regarding the address at which Mr Jones wishes to serve that sentence. That report is now to hand.

[1] Jones v New Zealand Police [2013] NZHC 1732.

[2] I do not propose to repeat the matters set out in my earlier judgment, other than to reiterate my observation[2] that the sentence will need to be longer than would normally be the case to reflect the fact that Mr Jones will require intensive rehabilitative assistance to address his underlying issues.

[2] Ibid, at [19].

[3] The formal orders of the Court are as follows:

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The sentence of 18 months imprisonment that Mr Jones received on 12

June 2013 is quashed.

3.In its place, and notwithstanding the fact that Mr Jones has already spent approximately five weeks in custody, I sentence him to nine months home detention on the following conditions:

a. He is to be released from prison at a time convenient to the prison authorities on Friday, 26 July 2013.

b. He is to travel from prison via the most direct practicable route to the address approved by Department of Corrections, and to await the arrival there of a representative of the monitoring company.

c. Mr Jones is to serve the sentence of home detention at that address and is to maintain a 24 hour curfew there.

d. Mr Jones is not to leave the address without the prior written permission of his probation officer.

e. Mr Jones is not to possess or consume alcohol or illegal drugs during the term of the sentence.

f. Mr Jones is to attend such counselling and/or rehabilitation programmes as his probation officer may direct.

Lang J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua
Counsel:
G Swhweizer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Corey Jones, the appellant, appealed against his sentence of 18 months imprisonment to the High Court of New Zealand in Rotorua. The case was heard on 9 July 2013, with G Schweizer appearing for the appellant and L Owen for the respondent, New Zealand Police. The appeal was against the sentence that Jones received on 12 June 2013. The court was required to decide whether the original sentence was appropriate or if a different penalty should be imposed.

The court noted that the sentence needed to be longer than usual to address Jones's underlying issues and provide intensive rehabilitative assistance. The court considered a report from the EM Bail Assessor regarding the address at which Jones wished to serve his sentence of home detention. The court concluded that the original sentence was too severe and that home detention would be more appropriate, considering Jones's need for rehabilitation. The court also considered that Jones had already spent approximately five weeks in custody.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of 18 months imprisonment was quashed. In its place, the court sentenced Jones to nine months of home detention, with specific conditions that he must adhere to during the term of the sentence. These conditions included maintaining a 24-hour curfew, not leaving the address without prior written permission from his probation officer, not possessing or consuming alcohol or illegal drugs, and attending any counselling or rehabilitation programs as directed by his probation officer.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal was allowed, the original sentence of 18 months imprisonment was quashed, and Jones was to serve nine months of home detention with the aforementioned conditions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established