L v Police HC Christchurch CRI 2007-409-142

[2007] NZHC 828

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2007-409-000142

L

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         23 August 2007

Counsel:        Appellant In Person

S C Poore for Respondent

Judgment:      23 August 2007

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

[1]      This is an appeal against a sentence of 180 hours community work.  Mr L  , who  appears in person, was sentenced by Judge Green in the District  Court on

5 July.    He  was  ordered  to  perform  180  hours  community  work  and  to  make reparation in the sum of $200 at $10 per week.  That sentence was with reference to a charge of theft.

[2]      In the  course of his  employment  the  appellant  had  taken  $200  and  was apprehended through the use of a security camera.  He pleaded guilty to the charge and appeared in a list court for sentence.  The Judge commented that this was serious

offending and a  few  years ago  would automatically have been  met  by a  prison

L V NZ POLICE HC CHCH CRI 2007-409-000142  23 August 2007

sentence.  Against that background he imposed the term of community work which I

have mentioned.

[3]      Mr L   in support of the appeal has made two points.  The first is that he suggests the sentence is out of line with others imposed for far more serious offences of dishonesty.   To that end he provided to me a number of newspaper clippings which do indeed suggest that the term of community work is out of line.

[4]      In addition, Mr Poore has extracted from a database a number of previous cases considered in this court on appeal.  This information likewise suggests that the present order is excessive.

[5]      The second point advanced in support of the appeal relates to Mr L  ’s personal circumstances.  He is in full-time employment, but also engaged as a cricket umpire during the summer months and, of course, at weekends.  This matter was not drawn to the Judge’s attention.  It makes performance of community work something of a difficulty.

[6]      Essentially with reference to the first factor I consider that the appeal should be allowed.   I reduce the term of the community work to 50 hours, but otherwise confirm the terms of the sentence.

Solicitors:

Appellant – 5/248 Worcester Street, Christchurch

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch for Respondent