Lawson v The Queen - [2013] NZCA 369

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA58/2013
[2013] NZCA 369

BETWEEN	HENRY VINCENT LAWSON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	12 August 2013
Court:	Harrison, Venning and Courtney JJ
Counsel:	R M Mansfield for Appellant B D Tantrum and E C Rutherford for Respondent
Judgment:	14 August 2013 at 10.45 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed.
BThe sentence of four years, seven months’ imprisonment is set aside. It is replaced by a sentence of four years’ imprisonment.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Venning J)

Introduction

Mr Henry Lawson appeals against a sentence of four years, seven months’ imprisonment imposed upon him in the District Court at Auckland following his pleas of guilty to six counts of burglary.[1]

Background

[1]R v Lawson DC Auckland CRI-2012-090-2969, 18 January 2013.

Between 19 March 2012 and 10 April 2012 Mr Lawson committed six burglaries of residential addresses in the Henderson area. All of the burglaries were committed during the day. In all but one of the burglaries Mr Lawson took jewellery and other items of value. The property he took was valued at approximately $40,200. In one burglary Mr Lawson took two irreplaceable World War New Zealand Air Force medals. None of the property has been recovered. A fuller summary of the facts is available in the sentencing notes.[2]

The District Court sentencing

[2]At [1]–[2].

Judge Behrens QC took a starting point of five years’ imprisonment for the offending, then applied an uplift of 12 months to reflect the fact the burglaries were committed while Mr Lawson was serving a sentence of intensive supervision and that he had, on the Judge’s calculation, 11 previous burglary offences.
From the resultant six years the Judge applied a 20 per cent credit for the guilty plea. He declined to make any reduction for remorse but made an allowance of two months for the time spent on electronically monitored bail while attending a programme at Odyssey House on remand. That led to the end sentence of four years, seven months’ imprisonment.

The appeal

Mr Mansfield argued that, having regard to sentences discussed in this Court for burglary the starting point of five years’ imprisonment was excessive and outside the available range for the offending: Jones v R, Swinburne v R, Makene v R, Marsh v R, R v Sherlock, Harrison v R and R v McAllister.[3] He also submitted the uplift of 12 months’ imprisonment for the personal aggravating factors was excessive. Finally Mr Mansfield submitted the Judge was wrong not to have applied a further reduction for the appellant’s genuine remorse and the steps he had taken towards reform. He argued for a sentence in the region of two years, 10 months’ imprisonment.
[3]Jones v R [2012] NZCA 273; Swinburne v R [2010] NZCA 568; Makene v R [2013] NZCA 178; Marsh v R [2010] NZCA 445; R v Sherlock [2008] NZCA 555; Harrison v R

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 Lawson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lawson v The Queen [2013] NZCA 369
Case: [2013] NZCA 369
Decision Date: 14 August 2013 at 10.45 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lawson v The Queen involves Henry Vincent Lawson appealing against a sentence imposed by the District Court in Auckland. Mr. Lawson was found guilty of six counts of burglary, for which he was sentenced to four years and seven months in prison. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the sentence to ensure it was within an appropriate range and properly accounted for mitigating and aggravating factors. The appeal hinged on whether the starting point of five years and the 12-month uplift for personal aggravating factors were justified, and whether sufficient credit was given for the appellant's remorse and steps towards reform.

The Court of Appeal held that the starting point of four and a half years was appropriate for the seriousness of the offending, and the 12-month uplift for previous offending and the circumstances of the crimes was justified. However, the Court found that the sentence did not adequately account for Mr. Lawson's steps towards addressing his drug addiction, which was a significant factor in his offending. The Court allowed an additional four months' credit for these efforts and accepted the 20% credit for the guilty pleas. The Court concluded that the overall sentence should be reduced to four years' imprisonment.

The appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was set aside and replaced with a sentence of four years' imprisonment. This decision highlights the importance of appropriately weighing mitigating factors such as steps towards reform and the need for a sentence that aligns with legal precedents for similar offending.

Orders