Lawson v Police - [2016] NZHC 1158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-045

[2016] NZHC 1158

BETWEEN
MANA LAWSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 11 April 2016

Appearances:

R L Brown for Appellant

H D Benson-Pope for Respondent

Judgment:

31 May 2016

JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 May 2016 at 3pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service, Auckland Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

LAWSON v POLICE [2016] NZHC 1158 [31 May 2016]

Summary

[1] The appellant, Mr Mana Lawson, appeals the sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment imposed upon him as being manifestly excessive, on the grounds that the starting point adopted by the sentencing Judge was too high, and that the mitigating factors of his youth, remorse and willingness to participate in restorative justice and rehabilitative programmes, were not adequately considered and reflected in the sentence imposed.

Factual background

[2] The appellant entered pleas of guilty to 23 charges of burglary, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, driving while disqualified, driving in a dangerous manner, and failing to stop. These charges arose from a series of events that took place on 7 June 2015 which are described in the Police summary of facts in respect of which the appellant’s pleas of guilty were entered.

[3] At about 9 pm on Sunday 7 June 2015, the owner of a Toyota Camry vehicle left it parked and locked on the roadside near his residence in Clendon, from where it was subsequently stolen.

[4] Later that same night at about 10:45 pm, the appellant and an associate drove the stolen Toyota to a Z service station located in Wiri Station Road. The service station was closed, having been secured for the night at about 10 pm.

[5] Both the appellant and his associate had disguised themselves with bandanas covering their faces and gloves on their hands. One of them carried a set of bolt cutters. They smashed the automatic door at the front of the service station and entered. One immediately went to the cigarette display while the other followed carrying a black rubbish sack.

[6] The security system was activated by their entry, resulting in a loud alarm being sounded and the room filling with smoke. Both offenders then bolted without managing to take anything, and departed in the stolen vehicle with the appellant driving.

[7] Police officers in a passing patrol vehicle heard the alarm going off at the service station, and saw the smoke and the departing vehicle. Suspecting the occupants to have been involved in the break in, the Police officers decided to stop the vehicle and turned on the patrol car’s flashing lights. The appellant failed to stop and accelerated away, driving at a speed of up to 90 km/h in the 60 km/h speed limit area, on the wrong side of the road, and finally stopping on the wrong side of the road, where both he and his associate got out 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lawson 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NZHC 1158
Decision Date: 31 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mana Lawson appealed against his sentence of 24 months' imprisonment, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed by Justice Davison. The appellant, Mr Lawson, argued that the starting point of 24 months was too high and did not adequately consider his youth, remorse and willingness to participate in rehabilitative programs. The court considered the appellant's criminal history, the gravity of the offence, and the appellant's lack of genuine remorse. The court found that the starting point selected by the Judge was within the available range and that the totality uplift was entirely justifiable. While discounts for youth are available, the court found that the appellant's extensive history of offending outweighed any potential discount for youth. The court also found that there was no error in the Judge's decision not to give any credit or discount for the appellant's remorse. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence upheld.

Orders