Legal Research
Cases
Law v Police

Law v Police

Case [2020] NZHC 717 6 April 2020

Appeal

Sentencing

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitative Purposes

Mitigating Factors

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-404-000045

CRI-2020-404-000046 [2020] NZHC 717

BETWEEN
RAYMOND LAW

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 6 April 2020

Appearances:

P McNabb for the Appellant C Purdon for the Respondent

Judgment:

6 April 2020

ORAL JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Public Defence Service, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Auckland

LAW v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 717 [6 April 2020]

Introduction

[1] Mr Raymond Law appeals against a sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Gibson in the District Court at Auckland on 12 February 2020.1 This followed Mr Law’s entering of guilty pleas pursuant to a sentence indication given on 5 November 2019 by Judge Ronayne.

Background and Offending

[2]Mr Law pleaded guilty to:

(a)five charges of burglary;2

(b)one charge of theft of over $1,000 and two charges of theft of under
$500;3

(c)one charge of failing to answer District Court bail;4 and

(d)one charge of breaching community work.5

[3] The burglary charges and theft of under $500 charges relate to events in April, May, and June 2019. Mr Law broke into locked areas in various laundromats around Auckland and stole various sums of money. He also damaged the premises and removed CCTV cameras. In total, over $11,000 was taken. This included over $500 he took from washing machine lockboxes using a key he stole during an earlier burglary. The charge of theft of over $1,000 relates to a separate incident in February 2019 where Mr Law stole a trailer from the forecourt of a business. Much of this offending took place while Mr Law was on bail for alleged offending in 2018.

[4] The charge of failing to answer District Court bail related to Mr Law’s failing to attend a scheduled court appearance on 17 September 2019. Corrections’ Provision

1      New Zealand Police v Law [2020] NZDC 3037.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a). Maximum sentence ten years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 219 and 223(b) and (d). Maximum sentences seven years’ and three months’ imprisonment, respectively.
4      Bail Act 2000, s 38. Maximum sentence one year’s imprisonment.
5      Sentencing Act 2002, s 71(1)(a). Maximum sentence three months’ imprisonment.

of Advice to the District Court records that Mr Law explained his failure to appear on the basis he had been busy with childcare and had forgotten about his court date.

[5] Prior to the present offending, Mr Law had received eleven convictions. His criminal history is not before me, but Corrections’ report suggests these related to relatively minor driving, dishonesty, drugs, and breach of sentence related offending, this being Mr Law’s first sentence of imprisonment.

[6] Mr Law has previously, as indicated by the charges on which he was sentenced, been subject to a sentence of community service. His breach of community work charge relates to his failure to report to a probation officer within 72 hours of receiving that sentence.

[7] He has also been sentenced to a period of community detention. 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 Law v Police

Details

AGLC: Law v Police [2020] NZHC 717
Case: [2020] NZHC 717
Decision Date: 6 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Raymond Law appealed against the 26-month imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge Gibson in the Auckland District Court on 12 February 2020. The sentence followed Mr Law's guilty pleas to multiple charges, including burglary, theft, failing to answer District Court bail, and breaching community work. The legal issues in this case were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle and, if so, whether home detention should be substituted.

The High Court found that the District Court erred by not considering mitigating factors personal to Mr Law, such as the impact of imprisonment on his large family and his demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation efforts. The Court considered a discount of about ten percent for these personal factors appropriate, resulting in an adjusted sentence of 23 months' imprisonment, which qualifies as a short-term sentence. The Court held that home detention would be more appropriate given Mr Law's demonstrated insight, recognition of his culpability, and genuine desire to change. However, concerns remained about his likelihood of compliance with home detention due to his history of non-compliance with community-based sentences and bail. Despite these concerns, the Court concluded that Mr Law's time on remand had motivated him to change, and the electronically monitored nature of home detention would provide additional incentive and assurance of compliance.

As a result, the appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentences imposed by Judge Gibson were quashed, and new sentences were substituted, all to be served concurrently. The Court also granted Mr Law leave to apply to the District Court for cancellation of the above sentences of imprisonment and substitution of a sentence of home detention if a suitable residence is identified.

Orders