Martin v Police - [2012] NZHC 2623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2012-441-26 [2012] NZHC 2623

ISAAC MARTIN
Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 9 October 2012

Counsel: L Lafferty for the Appellant
N M Graham for the Respondent

Judgment: 9 October 2012

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors:
Mr L Lafferty, Solicitor, Napier
Ms N M Graham, Elvidge & Partners, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Napier

MARTIN V POLICE HC NAP CRI-2012-441-26 [9 October 2012]

[1] Mr Martin appeals against a sentence of 2 years 10 months imprisonment for three offences of receiving, one burglary and one theft committed between October
2011 and March 2012.

[2] I will set out chronologically the essential facts of the offending.

(a) The first offence was on 18 October 2011 when Mr Martin stole a taxi driver’s cellphone worth around $160 while the taxi driver was helping unload Mr Martin’s groceries. The maximum penalty for that offence is 3 months imprisonment.

(b)The second offence was the burglary on 24 November 2011. This is the most serious offence. The maximum penalty for burglary is 10 years imprisonment. The appellant and another person drove down a long driveway to a house. No one was home. The owner returned to the property and saw the appellant in the sunroom. The appellant walked up to the complainant and spoke to her asking if some random person lived at the house. The complainant said he had the wrong address and the appellant asked her to move her car so they could reverse out. The complainant returned to find a ranchslider had been smashed using a golf club. Although insurance covered most of the cost, the damage to the ranchslider cost $2,800 to repair and there were further expenses of around $500. It is relevant to note, in respect of further offending, that the appellant first appeared on this charge on
16 January 2012.

(c) The third offence was the first receiving offence. This was a watch worth around $400. The maximum penalty for this is 3 months imprisonment.

(d)The fourth offence was on 23 January 2012. This was seven days after the appellant’s first appearance on the burglary charge. On this occasion the appellant received a mountain bike frame worth around

$1,300. This had been taken in a burglary that occurred that day. The maximum penalty for this offence is 7 years imprisonment.

(e) The final offence was receiving which occurred between 24 February and 30 March 2012. The appellant received a pair of running shoes worth around $250. The maximum penalty here is 3 months imprisonment.

[3] The appellant was sentenced on 29 June 2012 by Judge Rea. After setting out the essential facts, and particularly in relation to the burglary, the Judge said:

[5] Although you are still a young man you have 19 previous instances of burglary over the Youth Court and the District Court and it is really no exaggeration to say that you have become something of a career criminal. I consider that the preferable…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Martin v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NZHC 2623
Decision Date: 9 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Martin v Police involves an appeal by Isaac Martin against a sentence of 2 years 10 months imprisonment for multiple criminal offences. These offences include receiving stolen property, burglary, and theft, committed between October 2011 and March 2012. Martin's appeal focuses on two main issues: the weight given to his prior convictions, particularly those dealt with in the Youth Court, and the assertion that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was appropriate, given the nature and circumstances of the crimes and Martin's criminal history.

Martin's legal representative argued that the sentencing judge erred by overly considering prior convictions from the Youth Court, suggesting that such convictions should not carry as much weight as adult convictions. The representative cited a previous High Court decision, Mackie v Police, to support this argument. Conversely, the Crown argued that the judge was entitled to consider the Youth Court convictions as part of Martin's behavioural history, which is relevant in determining an appropriate sentence. This was supported by the Court of Appeal's approval in Ronganui of remarks from Kohere v Police, emphasizing that Youth Court proceedings can inform sentencing in the District Court.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, found that the sentencing judge did not place undue weight on the Youth Court convictions. The judge appropriately assessed the gravity of the current offences, particularly the burglary, and considered Martin's extensive history of dishonesty and burglary offences. The court also noted the serious impact on the victim and Martin's high risk of re-offending. The sentence, while substantial, was deemed appropriate given the seriousness of the crimes and Martin's criminal trajectory. The Court concluded that there was no error of law that warranted interference with the District Court's sentence.

In summary, the High Court upheld the District Court's sentence, finding that it was neither excessively harsh nor based on an inappropriate consideration of Martin's past convictions. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Orders