Mane v Police - [2024] NZHC 3700

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2024-488-000111

CRI-2024-488-000112 [2024] NZHC 3700

TYSON MANE

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Hearing: 5 December 2024

Appearances:

M Nicholls for the Appellant

A Goodwin for the Respondents

Judgment:

6 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 December 2024 at 11 am Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:

M Nicholls, Barrister, Kerikeri MWIS, Crown Solicitor Whangārei

MANE v POLICE & CORRECTIONS [2024] NZHC 3700 [6 December 2024]

[1] Mr Mane is someone with a very poor history of compliance with court orders. He appeals a sentence imposed by Judge D J McDonald in the Whangārei District Court of nine months’ imprisonment for two breaches of home detention,1 a charge of theft (over $1,000)2 and a charge of theft (under $500).3 The home detention sentence which he was ostensibly serving was one of four months handed down by the Auckland District Court for receiving property over $1,000 and driving while disqualified.

[2] Mr Mane argues that the nine-month end point is manifestly excessive because the Judge erred by imposing a cumulative sentence of eight months’ imprisonment for the two breaches of home detention. He contends that an end point in totality of no more than five months is appropriate. Counsel for Mr Mane also identifies two errors by the sentencing Judge — one of process and one factual.

[3]The respondent argues that the cumulative sentence of one month for theft over

$1,000 and the concurrent sentence of one month for theft under $500 could have been significantly higher, so on that basis the end sentence is not manifestly excessive.

Background

[4] Mr Mane first pleaded guilty to the theft charges on 3 September 2024. Sentencing was set down for 21 October 2024. On 24 September 2024, Mr Mane pleaded guilty to the first breach of home detention conditions (which occurred on 18 August 2024). At that appearance an informal indication was given that home detention would be on the table. However, at sentencing, the Department of Corrections (Corrections) provided counsel with partial disclosure of another alleged breach of home detention. After the matter was stood down, Mr Mane entered a guilty plea to the new charge. Sentencing proceeded. During sentencing, Mr Mane’s supervising Probation Officer handed up a letter to the Judge. That letter had not previously been seen by counsel. It made for poor reading.

1      Sentencing Act 2002, s 80S — maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 219 and 223(b) — maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 219 and 223(d) — maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.

[5] The Judge identified the lead charges as the breaches of home detention. A summary of the offending is recorded in the sentencing notes as follows:4

[4] On 18 August 2024, you contacted the home detention electronically monitoring team after hours.…

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 Mane v Police

Details

AGLC: Mane v Police [2024] NZHC 3700
Case: [2024] NZHC 3700
Decision Date: 6 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tyson Mane appeals against his nine-month sentence imposed for two breaches of home detention, one charge of theft over $1,000 and one charge of theft under $500. Mane argues that the sentence is manifestly excessive and that the cumulative sentence for the two breaches of home detention should not have been eight months. The respondent contends that the theft sentences could have been significantly higher, making the overall sentence appropriate. The High Court must determine whether the sentence is manifestly excessive and whether any errors in the sentencing process warrant a different sentence.

The key legal issues in this case are whether the cumulative sentence for the two breaches of home detention was excessive and whether the overall sentence is manifestly excessive. The court must consider whether the sentence falls within the appropriate range, focusing on the outcome rather than the process. The court must also assess the impact of the theft sentences on the overall end sentence.

The court found that the home detention sentences were outside the appropriate range for an offender who did not remove the electronic monitoring bracelet or decamp. A cumulative approach was proper, and the cumulative sentence of eight months before applying a guilty plea discount represented the level of culpability. However, the court considered the overall sentence, taking into account the theft offences. The court concluded that the theft sentences could have been higher, and the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stands.

The court ordered that the appeal is dismissed, and the original sentence of nine months imprisonment stands.

Orders