Knock v Police - [2016] NZHC 1643

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-443-17

CRI-2016-443-18 [2016] NZHC 1643

IN THE MATTER OF
an appeal against sentence pursuant to

s 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011

BETWEEN

WESLEY JOSEPH KNOCK Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 19 July 2016 via AVL

Counsel:

M S Boyd for Appellant
J E Bourke for Respondent

Judgment:

20 July 2016

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is
4 pm on the 20th day of July 2016

KNOCK v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 1643 [20 July 2016]

[1] Mr Knock is 22 years old. He appeals his sentence of a total of 15 months’

imprisonment on the following charges:

(a) unlawfully taking a motor vehicle; (b) escaping lawful custody;
(c) unlawfully interfering with a motor vehicle x2; and

(d) driving while disqualified.1

Facts

[2] The events leading to the unlawful interfering charges occurred on

27 December 2015. He went into a motel car-park, and unsuccessfully tried to get into a van that was parked there. He then succeeded in getting into a nearby car and searched the glove box.

[3] On 9 January 2016, Mr Knock was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by Police. He was wanted by Police at the time and was told he was under arrest. He ran away.

[4] On 24 January 2016 Mr Knock got into a car that had been parked outside the owner’s house in New Plymouth and drove it away. During the drive, the car was damaged: the bull bar was pushed in, and the rear bumper and left side quarter light were damaged. He left the vehicle in Waitara. He was disqualified from driving at the time. This gave rise to the unlawful taking charge.

[5] Mr Knock subsequently pleaded guilty to all charges.

Sentencing in the District Court

[6] The sentencing Judge noted:2

1 He was also convicted and discharged on charges of shoplifting a singlet worth $45 and failing to answer Police bail.
2 New Zealand Police v Knock [2016] NZDC 7429.

(a) that Mr Knock had convictions from 2014 including common assault, driving with excess blood alcohol, and breach of release conditions. There were 27 previous convictions in total, mostly for dishonesty and driving related offences;

(b)the influence of alcohol, poor impulse control, and the effect on Mr Knock of the recent loss of his grandmother and the rest of his family moving to Australia; and

(c) that he was identified as at high risk of reoffending and medium risk of harm to others.

[7] The Judge noted that Mr Knock had said he was sorry for what he had done, that he did not think highly of himself and that he had “sabotaged” himself.

[8]      The Judge also noted that Mr Knock had: (a)   engaged with restorative justice;
(b)      offered a verbal apology to the owner of the car that was taken; (c)    written the owner a letter of apology;
(d)      committed to…

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 Knock v Police

Details

AGLC: Knock v Police [2016] NZHC 1643
Case: [2016] NZHC 1643
Decision Date: 20 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wesley Joseph Knock appeals against his sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment for various charges including unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, escaping lawful custody, and driving while disqualified. The appeal is heard in the High Court of New Zealand, New Plymouth Registry. The court must decide if the starting point for the lead offence was appropriate, whether the uplift for the totality of the offending and prior convictions was excessive, and if the court failed to give separate credit for remorse. The court finds that the 12-month starting point for the lead offence was at the stern end of the appropriate range, and the eight-month uplift was excessive. The court also finds that the sentencing judge wrongly failed to give separate credit for remorse. The court reduces the uplift to four months, adds a one-month discount for remorse, and substitutes a sentence of 11 months’ imprisonment for the 15-month sentence originally imposed. The appeal is allowed, and the original sentence is quashed and replaced with an 11-month imprisonment sentence.

Orders