Mann v Police - [2012] NZHC 2613

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2012-425-35

CRI-2012-425-36 [2012] NZHC 2613

JASON DAVID MANN
Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 8 October 2012

Counsel: J K Fraser for Appellant
L Cole for Respondent

Judgment: 8 October 2012

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

JASON DAVID MANN V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC INV CRI-2012-425-35 [8 October 2012]

[1] Mr Mann pleaded guilty in the District Court to two charges of assaulting a female, one charge of wilful damage and one charge of assault with a weapon.

[2] On 22 June 2012, Judge Phillips sentenced him to an effective term of one year eight months imprisonment.[1] He now appeals against that sentence on the basis that the Judge erred in the manner in which he constructed the sentence, and this has resulted in an end sentence that is manifestly excessive.

[1] New Zealand Police & Anor v Mann DC Invercargill CRI-2012-025-000625, 22 June 2012.

[3] Mr Mann pleaded guilty after having received a sentence indication from the same Judge on 15 June 2012. I take the structure of the sentence to be that described by the Judge in his sentencing indication.

The facts

[4] The Judge set out the relevant facts in both the sentence indication and in his sentencing notes. These reveal that the charges arose out of two separate incidents. The first occurred on 26 February 2012 when Mr Mann went to his ex-partner’s address, supposedly to assist with behavioural problems being exhibited by the complainant’s son. He was intoxicated when he arrived, and was carrying beer with him. At that stage Mr Mann’s ex-partner was 31 weeks pregnant. An argument occurred, and Mr Mann’s former partner told him to leave. As he was leaving, he threw a bottle through the window of the address. He then came back inside, and was asked to leave again. He responded by grabbing his former partner by the neck, pushing her backwards and causing her to fall onto the couch. He was then removed from the premises by his associates. All of this occurred in front of the complainant’s 4 year old son, of whom Mr Mann is the father.

[5] Mr Mann was arrested and charged in relation to the events that occurred in this incident. He was then released on bail.

[6] Approximately three months later, on 5 May 2012, Mr Mann went uninvited to another address, again occupied by a person with whom he had been involved in

an earlier relationship. This relationship had, however, ended approximately ten years earlier.

[7] Again, Mr Mann was intoxicated and, again, some form of argument occurred. Without warning, he then punched the complainant to the head on three separate occasions. He then told her that he was going to jail anyway, and did not really care what happened. This preceded a further punch, this time to the ribs. Mr Mann then got up and went to the kitchen. He told the complainant that he was going…

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 Mann v Police

Details

AGLC: Mann v Police [2012] NZHC 2613
Case: [2012] NZHC 2613
Decision Date: 8 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand at Invercargill heard an appeal by Jason David Mann against a sentence imposed by the District Court. Mr. Mann appealed the one-year and eight-month imprisonment sentence given by Judge Phillips, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to an alleged error in the manner it was constructed. The appeal was based on the assertion that Judge Phillips had incorrectly applied a double uplift for Mr. Mann's previous convictions and excessive discount for his guilty pleas. The court reviewed the sentencing process, the relevance of previous convictions, and the appropriate discount for the guilty pleas.

The court determined that while there was some basis to argue that the uplift for previous convictions was too great, it was balanced by the excessive discount applied for the guilty pleas. The court concluded that the sentence was within the appropriate range and did not find it to be manifestly excessive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court's reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the principles of sentencing, the relevance of previous convictions, and the appropriate discount for early guilty pleas. The court emphasized that while the sentence could be debated, it was not so disproportionate as to be manifestly excessive.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentence imposed by the District Court stood affirmed.

Orders