Makea-Crouth v Police - [2019] NZHC 2037

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-000254

[2019] NZHC 2037

UNDER Sentencing Act 2002 and the Criminal Procedure Act 2011

BETWEEN

JAMES MAKEA-CROUTH
Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 19 August 2019

Counsel:

HB Leabourn for Appellant TH Stuart for Respondent

Judgment:

20 August 2019

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 3.30 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
HB Leabourn, Auckland. Crown Solicitor, Auckland.

MAKEA-CROUTH v POLICE [2019] NZHC 2037 [20 August 2019]

[1] On 30 May 2019, Judge K J Glubb sentenced Mr Makea-Crouth to a term of 17 months’ imprisonment.1 Mr Makea-Crouth appeals. He contends the Judge erred by not imposing a sentence of home detention. No other issue is raised. The appeal must be allowed if, and only if, the Judge erred and a different sentence should have been imposed.2

[2] Mr Makea-Crouth pleaded guilty to four charges: burglary; unlawful interference with a car; obtaining by deception; and refusing to provide a blood specimen.

[3] On 20 January 2019 at about 3 am, Mr Makea-Crouth walked onto private property and opened the unlocked door of a car. He searched the glovebox. Mr Makea-Crouth was then subject to a sentence of supervision for receiving stolen property and causing loss by deception.

[4] On 6 March 2019, Mr Makea-Crouth walked onto private property, entered a shed, and took a lawnmower, two mountain bikes, a weedeater, an electric hedge trimmer, and a leaf blower. Some were sold later the same day. Mr Makea-Crouth was then on bail for the 20 January offence.

[5] On 31 March 2019, Mr Makea-Crouth was driving. His car broke down. Mr Makea-Crouth’s behaviour attracted Police attention. Mr Makea-Crouth refused to provide a blood specimen. This offending was also committed on bail.

[6] Mr Makea-Crouth is 22 years old. Judge Glubb described his history as “troubling”.3 Mr Makea-Crouth has eight convictions for theft, two for burglary, two for receiving stolen property, one for fraud, and one for unlawfully getting into a car. Mr Makea-Crouth has an extensive Youth Court history. Dishonesty is the stand out feature.

[7] Mr Makea-Crouth contends the Judge “failed to take sufficient notice of the personal circumstances surrounding the appellant and his family”. Mr Makea-Crouth

1      Police v Makea-Crouth [2019] NZDC 10426.
2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2). See also Manikpersadh v R [2011] NZCA 452.
3      Police v Makea-Crouth, above n 1, at [9].

has a new partner and a five-month-old child. His partner is here on a visitor’s visa. She hopes to remain in New Zealand. It is not clear whether she may do so. Mr Makea-Crouth has a child from a previous relationship “with whom he has regular and consistent contact”.4 Mr Makea-Crouth had “significant family support at the time of his sentencing”.5 Mr Makea-Crouth would live with his father if home detention were imposed.6 His address is considered suitable.

[8] Mr Makea-Crouth also invites…

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 Makea-Crouth v Police

Details

AGLC: Makea-Crouth v Police [2019] NZHC 2037
Case: [2019] NZHC 2037
Decision Date: 20 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with an appeal against a sentence imposed on James Makea-Crouth by Judge K J Glubb, who sentenced him to 17 months’ imprisonment. Mr Makea-Crouth appealed the decision, arguing that the Judge should have imposed a sentence of home detention instead of imprisonment. The central issue before the court was whether the sentencing Judge had erred in deciding on imprisonment instead of home detention. The appeal would only be allowed if it was established that the Judge had indeed erred in his decision, leading to a different sentence being necessary.

The court considered the arguments presented by Mr Makea-Crouth, which included his personal circumstances, family support, and previous experience with home detention. The court also noted the Department of Corrections' recommendation for imprisonment, highlighting Mr Makea-Crouth's history of non-compliance with community-based sentences and high risk of re-offending. The court found that Judge Glubb had appropriately weighed these factors and determined that imprisonment was necessary given the seriousness of the offenses and Mr Makea-Crouth's criminal history. The reasoning of the sentencing Judge was deemed sound, and no error was found in the decision.

The High Court upheld the decision of the sentencing Judge, dismissing the appeal. The reasoning was that the sentencing Judge, having a broader perspective on similar cases, was in a better position to decide on the appropriate sentence. The Court concluded that the Judge’s decision to impose imprisonment was justified and appropriate given the circumstances and evidence presented.

Orders