IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY
CRI-2012-412-000033 [2012] NZHC 2370
BETWEEN BOYCEE LINTON JUNIOR KARETU Appellant
ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
Hearing: 13 September 2012
Counsel: A M Dawson for Appellant
R D Smith for Respondent
Judgment: 14 September 2012
In accordance with r 11.5 I direct the Registrar to endorse this judgment with the delivery time of 9.30am on the 14th day of September 2012.
RESERVED JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J
Introduction
[1] On 3 April 2012 the appellant was sentenced to a total period of two years
and three months’ imprisonment in relation to the following offences:
(1) Unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle contrary to s 226(1) of the
Crimes Act 1961;
(2)Refusing an officer’s request for a blood specimen contrary to s 60(1)(a) of the Land Transport Act 1998;
(3) Careless driving causing injury contrary to s 38 of the Land Transport
Act 1998;
KARETU V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC DUN CRI-2012-412-000033 [14 September 2012]
(4) Unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition contrary to s 45(1)
of the Arms Act 1983;
(5) Receiving stolen property under $500 in value contrary to ss 246 and
247 of the Crimes Act 1961; and
(6)Breaching release conditions on two occasions contrary to s 96(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002.
The appellant appeals against this total sentence. He says it was manifestly excessive.
[2] In imposing the sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment the
District Court Judge:
(1)imposed a one year period of imprisonment for unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, to which an additional three months’ imprisonment was imposed to take account of the appellant’s previous convictions. A further one month period of imprisonment was imposed for the refusal to provide a blood specimen, and a further one month period of imprisonment was imposed for the careless driving causing injury. This created an end starting point of one year five months’ imprisonment for the offences referred to in [1(1)-(3)] above;
(2)imposed a cumulative one year three months’ period of imprisonment for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. A one month concurrent period of imprisonment was imposed for receiving stolen property; and
(3) imposed a cumulative six months’ period of imprisonment for
breaching release conditions.
[3] This resulted in an end starting point of three years and two months’
imprisonment. A reduction of 25 per cent was granted in response to the appellant’s
guilty pleas. This resulted in the end sentence of two years three months’
imprisonment.
The offending
[4] On 14 January 2012, a Mazda motor vehicle was unlawfully taken from its owner in Porirua, and ended up in the possession of the appellant, who was found to be driving it on 27 January in Dunedin. The appellant was driving at speed on Orr St, Dunedin when he lost control of the vehicle and hit a parked car on the side of the road before colliding with a concrete wall. He then ran from the vehicle until the police apprehended him. The police noticed…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Karetu v Police and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2012] NZHC 2370
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether cumulative sentences were justified, given the separate nature of the offences. It was held that the offences were sufficiently discrete and not part of a continuing course of conduct. The court also examined the individual sentences, particularly those for unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. It found that the starting point of one year five months for the vehicle-related offences was high, especially since the appellant was not responsible for taking the vehicle. The court also found the starting point of one year and three months for the possession of firearms charge to be high, particularly given the circumstances of the offence. The court concluded that a starting point of one year for the vehicle-related offences and 14 months for the possession of firearms was more appropriate. The six-month sentence for breaching release conditions was upheld.
The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment was reduced to two years’ imprisonment. The court adopted cumulative sentences of one year for the vehicle-related offences, 14 months for the possession of firearms, and six months for the breaches of release conditions. The remaining orders and sentences made by the District Court were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.