Lloyd v Police

[2014] NZHC 851

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI 2013-425-43 [2014] NZHC 851

BETWEEN

LUKE ALLAN LLOYD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:

29 April 2014

(On the papers)

Counsel:

J Ross for Appellant
M-J Thomas for Respondent

Judgment:

29 April 2014

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1]      The  appellant  appeals  the  amount  of  reparation  imposed  in  respect  of  a charge of burglary and applies for an extension of time for filing notice of appeal pursuant to s 123 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

[2]      On the night of 13 September 2012, the appellant approached the entrance of a dairy situated in Invercargill.  He kicked the front door several times and forced his way into the store.   He began kicking a cigarette cabinet in an attempt to open it. The security alarm was activated and the appellant fled from the store.

[3]      The following day the appellant was apprehended by the Police and admitted breaking into the dairy.  In explanation, he stated he was remorseful and could not remember what he had done because of his state of intoxication at the time.

[4]      The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of burglary and was sentenced by Judge MacDonald who, as part of the sentence imposed for this offending, ordered the appellant to pay reparation.  The door to the dairy was extensively damaged and

needed to be replaced.   At the time of the appellant’s sentencing there was some

LLOYD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 851 [29 April 2014]

confusion regarding whether a second offender was involved and also the costs incurred as a result of the damage done.   The District Court records an order for reparation in the sum $7,213.31 being imposed on the appellant.

[5]      In preparation for this appeal, further investigations were made by Police in relation to the amount of reparation owing.  Those enquiries have clarified the actual costs of the damage.  The Crown accepts that the amount of reparation that should have been imposed is in the sum of $6,214.42.

[6]      A joint memorandum signed by Crown counsel and counsel for the appellant has  been  filed  which  records  that  the  parties  are  agreed  as  to  the  amount  of reparation that should have been imposed and that the appeal can be disposed of on the  basis  of  that  agreed  figure.    The  Crown  accepts  that  the  appeal  should  be allowed, there having been an error in the sentence imposed.

[7]      The  original  sentence  of  reparation  of  $7,213.31  is  set  aside  and  in substitution a sentence of reparation in the sum $6,214.42 is imposed.  Extension of time for filing the notice of appeal is also granted.

Solicitors:

AWS Legal, Invercargill

Crown Solicitor, Invercargill