Leef v Police - [2019] NZHC 3372

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-490

[2019] NZHC 3372

BETWEEN
EDWARD LEEF

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 17 December 2019

Appearances:

H Croucher for Appellant M Beattie for Respondent

Judgment:

18 December 2019

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 December 2019 at 10.30 am Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

LEEF v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3372 [18 December 2019]

Introduction

[1] Edward Leef pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for the following charges:1

(a)male assaults female;2

(b)assault with intent to injure;3

(c)unlawfully taking a motor vehicle;4 and

(d)theft (between $500 and $1,000).5

[2] The only issue on appeal is whether Judge Skellern in the Manukau District Court was wrong not to convert the sentence to one of home detention.

Facts

[3] The majority of the offending concerns violence by the appellant against his ex-partner of two-and-a-half years.

Male assaults female

[4] On 16 May 2018, the appellant and the victim were at home and got into a dispute. While she was holding their baby, the appellant held her tightly and bit her on the nose for about 20 seconds. The victim was not injured, but she had two small red marks at the top of her nose. The appellant initially denied the allegations and told Police the victim was suffering from a mental health episode. After this incident, the 19-month-old baby was removed from the care of the victim and the appellant.

1      Police v Leef [2019] NZDC 21723
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 194(b). Maximum penalty is two years' imprisonment.
3      Section 193. Maximum penalty is three years' imprisonment.
4      Section 226(1). Maximum penalty is seven years' imprisonment.
5      Section 219 and 223(c). Maximum penalty is one year imprisonment.

Assault with intent to injure

[5] On 2 June 2018, the appellant and the victim had been drinking and were again involved in an argument.

[6] The appellant snapped a mop he was holding and used the handle to hit the victim on the right-side of her head behind her ear. He continued to strike her repeatedly with the mop handle several times, connecting with her head, neck, back and shoulder. The appellant grabbed the victim's hair in one hand and forced her to the ground. He dragged her by her hair and punched, kicked and kneed her multiple times to the head and body. The victim was close to losing consciousness and suffered deep bruising.

Unlawfully taking a motor vehicle and theft from a car

[7] In June 2019, the appellant was employed at Delta Civil Limited. On 30 June, the appellant took a vehicle transport trailer and six batteries (worth $100 each) from a work site based at his home address.

District Court Decision

[8] The appellant was sentenced by Judge Skellern on 30 October 2019, taking the following approach:

(a)A starting point of 20 months' imprisonment.

(b)An uplift…

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 Leef v Police

Details

AGLC: Leef v Police [2019] NZHC 3372
Case: [2019] NZHC 3372
Decision Date: 18 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Edward Leef appeals against his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, arguing that the sentencing judge in the Manukau District Court erred in not converting the sentence to one of home detention. The High Court of New Zealand considered this appeal on 18 December 2019. The court had to decide whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing imprisonment over home detention, considering the purposes and principles of sentencing, including rehabilitation and reintegration.

The court examined the appellant's criminal history and the nature of the offending, which included violence against his ex-partner. The sentencing judge considered the appellant's previous convictions, his attitude in the pre-sentence report, and the victim impact statement. The judge noted that the assaults were brutal and that home detention would not adequately address the harm done to the victim or satisfy the purposes of denunciation and deterrence. The court considered that the sentencing judge did not place undue emphasis on these principles over rehabilitation and reintegration, but also acknowledged the seriousness of the offending.

In dismissing the appeal, the High Court found that the sentencing judge had considered the appellant's rehabilitative efforts and the potential benefits of home detention, but ultimately concluded that imprisonment was necessary to meet the purposes and principles of sentencing. The court found no error in the sentencing judge's reasoning and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal is dismissed.

Orders