[1] Mr Longman appeals a sentence of seven months’ home detention.1 The basis of the appeal is that insufficient credit was given for time spent on electronically monitored (EM) bail prior to sentencing, and for time spent on custodial remand prior to sentencing. The respondent submits sufficient credit has been given, but contends alternatively the current overall outcome is a lenient sentence which should not be adjusted.

Facts

[2] Mr Longman pleaded guilty to charges of burglary, breaching release conditions and breaching community work conditions. The burglary concerned
commercial premises. Mr Longman and two others entered a yard, disabled the power

1 New Zealand Police v Longman [2017] NZDC 20707.

LONGMAN v POLICE [2017] NZHC 2928 [28 November 2017]

and broke into an office. There they disabled the surveillance cameras. About one thousand dollars in cash was taken. The offenders then went outside, took tools from a workshop and took a truck which they loaded with stolen property. The truck was abandoned elsewhere with the stolen property missing. Earlier, while in the office the offenders poured milk over most surfaces and ransacked it. The stolen property was valued at just under $38,000.

[3] Mr Longman has a significant criminal history. He has around 70 previous convictions dating back 14 years. Since June 2014 he has 15 convictions, all but one of which merited a term of imprisonment (for some home detention was the ultimate outcome). This offending is largely property focused and relevantly includes two burglaries and three breaches of conditions.

[4] The District Court took a starting point of two years for the burglary. There were then added three months for the other offending, and a three month uplift for past offending. A totality adjustment offset one of those three month periods leading to a
27 month starting point reduced by 25 per cent for a guilty plea to 20 months. This was converted to 10 months’ home detention, which was then reduced by a global three month figure to reflect time on EM bail and time in custody. The respective periods Mr Longman served were four and a half months’ pre-sentence custody and two and a half months EM bail.

Discussion

[5] The appeal puts in issue two conceptually different periods – time spent on EM bail and time spent on custodial remand. It is important to recognise the inherent differences to ensure appropriate credit is given. These differences mean the relevance of each period falls to be assessed at different points in the sentencing process.

[6] Time spent on EM bail is a mandatory consideration when setting the appropriate sentence (ss 9(2)(h) and 9(3A) of the Sentencing Act 2002). The
authorities…

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 Longman v Police

Details

AGLC: Longman v Police [2017] NZHC 2928
Case: [2017] NZHC 2928
Decision Date: 28 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Longman v Police, the High Court of New Zealand addressed an appeal by Adam John Longman against his sentence of seven months' home detention. The appellant contested the adequacy of credit given for time spent on electronically monitored (EM) bail and custodial remand prior to sentencing. Longman pleaded guilty to charges of burglary, breaching release conditions, and breaching community work conditions. The burglary involved commercial premises, with the offenders disabling power and surveillance cameras, taking cash, and ransacking the premises. Longman had a significant criminal history, with numerous prior convictions, predominantly property-related.

The legal issues before the court were whether the District Court had properly credited time spent on EM bail and custodial remand in the sentencing process. The court distinguished between credit for time spent on EM bail and credit for time spent on custodial remand. While credit for time on EM bail is considered when setting the appropriate length of any sentence of imprisonment, credit for time spent on custodial remand should be given when the sentence is home detention. The court held that full credit should be given for time spent on custodial remand, as it is conceptually different from EM bail and should be considered when adjusting a home detention sentence.

The court found that the District Court had not adequately credited time on EM bail and custodial remand. The appellant spent two and a half months on a 24-hour curfew with four approved absences and no breaches, for which a one-month credit was appropriate. For the four and a half months spent on custodial remand, the court determined that full credit should be applied, reducing the home detention term to five months. The court also addressed the respondent's argument that the sentence was lenient and should not be adjusted. The court agreed that most components had worked in Longman's favor but found it necessary to correct the error in crediting time served in jail.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of seven months' home detention for the burglary was substituted with one of five months' home detention. The existing sentences of home detention for the two breach charges were quashed and replaced with sentences of one month home detention, to run concurrently with each other and with the burglary sentence.

Orders