Ledgerwood v R - [2017] NZHC 822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2017-412-000010 [2017] NZHC 822

BETWEEN
COREY PAUL LEDGERWOOD

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 26 April 2017

Appearances:

B P Kilkelly for Appellant
F Biggs for Crown

Judgment:

28 April 2017

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, one charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice,1 and two charges of breach of parole conditions.

[2] The appellant was sentenced to a total of two years nine months’

imprisonment on the three charges.

[3] The appellant appeals that sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal is advanced on the grounds that:

(a) the end sentence of two years nine months was manifestly excessive; (b) the starting point was too high;
(c) the uplifts, totalling nine months, were excessive.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 117.

LEDGERWOOD v THE QUEEN [2017] NZHC 822 [28 April 2017]

The District Court decision

[4] The appellant was sentenced by Judge Crosbie on 25 January 2017.2

[5] The Judge outlined the facts of the offending, which involved the defendant communicating on Facebook with the complainant in an assault charge against the appellant’s brother. The appellant communicated on Facebook with sent messages to the complainant describing him as a “snitch” and a “nark” and sending veiled threats if he gave evidence in Court.

[6] The Judge noted the appellant’s explanation that he had sent the messages out of frustration. However, he emphasised the seriousness of the lead charge which he said “strikes at the very heart of the criminal justice system and everything we do in this place”.3 The Judge also noted the appellant’s particular offending was not in the most serious of cases, but it was “moderately so”.4

[7] The Judge emphasised that, in light of the principles and purposes of sentencing:5

[t]oday is about holding you to account and promoting in you some responsibility…

[t]oday is also about deterrence, sending a specific message to you because there is just too much of you coming back.

[8] The Judge then referred to authority cited to him by counsel which satisfied him that a starting point of around three years was appropriate. To that starting point of three years, the Judge uplifted by a total of nine months to reflect the appellant’s previous convictions, the fact he offended while on parole, and the separate charges of breach of parole conditions, which involved consuming alcohol, and associating with a victim of his offending.

[9] An end sentence of two years nine months’ imprisonment was reached after affording the appellant a full 25 per cent credit for early guilty pleas.

2 R v Ledgerwood [2017] NZDC 1466.
3 At [5].
4 At [16].
5 At [8] and [10].

Principles on appeal

[10] Appeals against sentence are brought under s 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and must be determined in accordance with s 250 of that Act. Specifically, this Court may only allow an appeal against sentence…

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 Ledgerwood v R

Details

AGLC: Ledgerwood v R [2017] NZHC 822
Case: [2017] NZHC 822
Decision Date: 28 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Corey Paul Ledgerwood appealed his conviction and sentence on charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice and two charges of breach of parole conditions. The District Court sentenced him to two years and nine months' imprisonment. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to an allegedly too-high starting point and excessive uplifts. The court considered the appellant's arguments and found that the starting point of three years was appropriate, and the uplifts for previous convictions, offending while on parole, and breach of parole conditions were not excessive. The court concluded that the total sentence of two years and nine months was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders were that the sentence of two years and nine months, looked at in totality, was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant's legal representation was Brian Kilkelly, and the Crown was represented by Crown Law.

Orders