Laxon v Police - [2017] NZHC 2324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2017-412-000038 [2017] NZHC 2324

BETWEEN
ROBERT PAUL LAXON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 11 September 2017

Appearances:

D L Henderson for the Appellant
R D Smith for the Respondent

Judgment:

25 September 2017

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] Mr Laxon pleaded guilty to two charges of dishonestly taking a motor vehicle, one charge of reckless driving, one charge of failing to stop, one charge of burglary and one charge of attempted burglary. He later sought to have the guilty pleas for the first three offences vacated. This application was refused.1 He was subsequently sentenced to two years and 10 months’ imprisonment.2

[2] Mr Laxon now appeals the refusal to allow his application to vacate his guilty pleas and against the sentence imposed.

Facts as indicated by the summary of facts

[3] On 10 April 2016, Mr Laxon drove to the Mosgiel A&P showgrounds and attempted to gain access to a drop-box attached to the office building on the site.

1 Police v Laxon [2017] NZDC 10783.
2 Police v Laxon [2017] NZDC 14630.

LAXON v POLICE [2017] NZHC 2324 [25 September 2017]

This drop-box is used by campers to place their payments. Mr Laxon then attempted to gain access to the office through a window that was left ajar but secured by levers. A camper confronted Mr Laxon and he fled.

[4] Later that day, Mr Laxon drove to a nearby function centre. He gained entry as it was unsecured. He forced open the locked office door, damaging the door. After locating a safe, he unsuccessfully attempted to gain entry to it. Mr Laxon found cash from green fees totalling $60, which he took. He was then discovered by the operator but barred the door. When the operator went to gain assistance, Mr Laxon fled.

[5] Mr Laxon was later arrested and charged for these incidents. He failed to answer his bail. On 17 May 2016, a warrant was issued when he failed to appear at the District Court.

[6] On 20 August 2016, Victim 1 was at a friend’s house in Dunedin and left her vehicle on the street. She then left the property in another vehicle. When she returned, her vehicle was gone. Police found it abandoned a week later.

[7] On 24 August, Victim 2 lent her vehicle to a friend to drive to Dunedin. Mr Laxon accompanied this friend on that trip. Mr Laxon took the keys while the friend was busy and drove off in the vehicle. Victim 2 had not given the appellant any authority to use the vehicle.

[8] On 2 September, Mr Laxon was located in Victim 2’s vehicle. He failed to stop for the police’s flashing lights and sirens and drove at excessive and dangerous speeds, utilising private driveways to hide and avoid being stopped by police. He drove at an estimated speed of 140 kilometres per hour in a 80 kilometres…

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 Laxon v Police

Details

AGLC: Laxon v Police [2017] NZHC 2324
Case: [2017] NZHC 2324
Decision Date: 25 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Paul Laxon appeals the refusal to allow his application to vacate guilty pleas and against the sentence imposed. The appeal against conviction concerns whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred. The appeal against sentence concerns whether the sentence is manifestly excessive. Mr Laxon pleaded guilty to charges of burglary, attempted burglary, taking a motor vehicle, reckless driving, failing to stop and attempted burglary. He later sought to withdraw guilty pleas for the first three offences. The application was refused. The Judge sentenced him to two years and 10 months’ imprisonment. Mr Laxon appeals against conviction on the basis that new evidence had emerged that might give rise to a possible defence to the charges and due process had not been followed. He also appeals against sentence on the basis that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. The appeal against sentence is dismissed. The appeal against conviction is dismissed because there was no miscarriage of justice. The potential new evidence was not sufficient to establish that Mr Laxon would have an arguable defence to the charges. The error of process did not cause a miscarriage of justice. The appeal against sentence is dismissed because there was no error in the way the Judge arrived at the end sentence or that the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

Orders