Knapp v The King - [2024] NZHC 2045

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2024-419-49

[2024] NZHC 2045

BRYAN KNAPP

v

THE KING

Hearing: 11 July 2024

Appearances:

G A Walsh for Applicant L Glasser for Crown

Judgment:

25 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 July 2024 at 3.30 pm,

………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

L Glaser, Hamilton Legal G Walsh, Barrister

KNAPP v R [2024] NZHC 2045 [25 July 2024]

Introduction

[1] Mr Knapp pleaded guilty to 10 charges including: conversion of a vehicle,1 three charges of burglary,2 three charges of intentional damage,3 failure to stop,4 dangerous driving causing injury,5 and possession of cannabis.6 On 3 May 2024,
Judge N D Cocurullo sentenced him to 26 months’ imprisonment.7

[2] Mr Knapp appeals on the basis that his end sentence was manifestly excessive, and he should have been sentenced to home detention. Counsel for Mr Knapp submits that the Judge gave insufficient weight to Mr Knapp’s youth and further personal mitigating factors including his time spent on restrictive bail, his vulnerability, and medical disability.

Background

[3] The case involves a spree of ram-raiding incidents throughout the Waikato region.

[4] On 24 November 2023 at around 11.30 pm, Mr Knapp and six associates arrived via two stolen Toyota Corollas at a club in Te Kuiti. The group gained access to the club by pulling the metal grating off the rear door with one of the vehicles. Inside the club, Mr Knapp stole a variety of alcoholic drinks, cigarette lighters, a box of Crunches, and the cash till drawer. Mr Knapp and his associates then fled the scene in the stolen vehicles.

[5] On 26 November 2023 at around 1.00 am, Mr Knapp and his associates arrived in the two Corollas at a Benneydale supermarket. Mr Knapp attempted to kick the front door in. Following this unsuccessful attempt, the group again gained access by

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 226(2). Maximum penalty: two years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 231(1). Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 269(2)(a). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Land Transport Act 1998, s 52A(1)(a)(ii), (2) and (3). Maximum penalty: $10,000 fine and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for six months.
5      Section 36(1)(b) and (2). Maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment or $20,000 fine and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for one year or more.
6      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment or
$500 fine.
7      New Zealand Police v Knapp [2024] NZDC 13524.

tying a rope between a door and a vehicle and driving forward causing the door to break. Inside the supermarket, Mr Knapp and his associates stole vapes, cigarette papers, freezer bins containing frozen items including ice-creams, the cash till drawer, a blue handled hammer, chips, and a wooden handled mallet. Before leaving, the group unplugged the freezers and smashed a security camera. In her victim impact statement, the owner 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 Knapp v The King

Details

AGLC: Knapp v The King [2024] NZHC 2045
Case: [2024] NZHC 2045
Decision Date: 25 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bryan Knapp appeals against his sentence imposed by Judge N D Cocurullo in the Hamilton District Court, arguing that the sentence of 26 months' imprisonment is manifestly excessive and that he should have been sentenced to home detention instead. Knapp contends that the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to his youth and personal mitigating factors, including his time spent on restrictive bail, his vulnerability, and his medical disability. The Crown, on the other hand, argues that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that the sentencing judge was correct in limiting the discounts to 20 per cent.

The Court must determine whether there was an error in the sentence imposed that warrants a different sentence. The appeal court will generally not intervene if the sentence falls within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles. The court must consider the sentence imposed, not the process by which it was reached. The Court found no error in the Judge's assessment of the discounts for familial background and youth. The Court noted that while Mr Knapp had a challenging background, he also had the benefit of at least one seemingly competent parent and considerations of agency and choice feature prominently in his offending profile. The court also considered Mr Knapp's prior offending history, which included multiple instances of burglary and unlawfully taking motor vehicles. The court held that the discount allowed for Mr Knapp's youth was not in error.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders