Mason v Police - [2018] NZHC 3387

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2018-454-000017

[2018] NZHC 3387

BETWEEN
JAHNA MEREANA MASON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 18 December 2018 (via AVL at Wellington)

Counsel:

S K Green for Appellant

S P Poulton for Respondent

Judgment:

18 December 2018

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Ms Mason appeals an effective sentence of 11 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Edwards in the District Court at Palmerston North on 18 October 2018.1 That sentence was imposed after Ms Mason had pleaded guilty, after receiving a sentencing indication, to the following charges:

(1)two charges of dishonestly using a document;2

(2)two charges of possessing a forged banknote;3

(3)four charges of theft;4 and

1      Police v Mason [2018] NZDC 21913.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 228(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 263; maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Sections 219 and 223(d); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.

MASON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 3387 [18 December 2018]

(4)one charge of breaching release conditions.5

[2] Ms Mason appeals her sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive.

[3] This judgment explains why I am allowing the appeal. The sentence imposed is quashed and substituted with one of five months’ imprisonment.

Summary of offending

[4] On 21 May 2018, Ms Mason entered a Farmers store in Palmerston North. She took a handbag valued at $249 and left the store without paying. She then returned to the same store and stole a 100 ml bottle of perfume valued at $224. Ms Mason also stole a jewellery box from a souvenir shop on the same day.

[5] On 27 May 2018, Ms Mason entered a Warehouse store in Feilding. She was intoxicated at the time. Ms Mason took a handbag valued at $22 from the shelf and attempted to leave the store without paying for it, but when the alarm system was activated she was confronted by staff.

[6] On 1 June 2018, Ms Mason entered a Salvation Army store in Pahiatua. She paid for a sweatshirt valued at $6.50 with a counterfeit $50 note, receiving $43.50 in change. A short time later, she entered a Tradesmart store situated nearby. She then paid for an item of clothing valued at $2 with another counterfeit $50 note, receiving
$48 change.

[7] That evening, Ms Mason attempted to use a third counterfeit $50 note at a hotel in Dannevirke. The owner of the hotel initially exchanged the counterfeit note for legal tender, but quickly realised that it was counterfeit and re-claimed her money. Ms Mason was initially charged in relation to this incident, but those charges were not pursued.

5 Sentencing Act 2002, s 96(1); maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment.

Personal circumstances

[8] Ms Mason is 37 years old. She has 37 previous convictions, the majority of which are for minor shoplifting. The remainder of her previous convictions are mostly for breach of court orders and sentencing conditions. Ms Mason…

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 Mason v Police

Details

AGLC: Mason v Police [2018] NZHC 3387
Case: [2018] NZHC 3387
Decision Date: 18 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Ms. Jahna Mereana Mason appealed against her 11-month imprisonment sentence, imposed by Judge Edwards in the District Court at Palmerston North. Ms. Mason had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including dishonestly using a document, possessing forged banknotes, theft, and breaching release conditions. Ms. Mason argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and the appeal was allowed by Collins J. The court found that the starting point adopted by the District Court for the dishonest use of a document charges was excessive, and a more appropriate starting point would have been two months' imprisonment. The uplifts given for the shoplifting offences were also considered too high, and a lower uplift was necessary to avoid disproportionality. The court accepted that the discount provided by the sentencing Judge was adequate to account for Ms. Mason's rehabilitative efforts and remorse. However, the 20 per cent discount given for the guilty plea was deemed appropriate, as there is no entitlement to a full discount for a guilty plea. The reparation orders were considered appropriate, given the victims of Ms. Mason's offending were charities.

The appeal against the sentence was allowed, and Ms. Mason's sentences were quashed and substituted with concurrent sentences of five months' imprisonment on each of the four charges involving the counterfeit bank notes, to be served concurrently with sentences of two months' imprisonment on each of the other charges. The new sentence aimed to hold Ms. Mason accountable, promote a sense of responsibility, provide for the interests of the victims, denounce the conduct, deter others, assist in her rehabilitation, and be the least restrictive outcome reasonably available.

Orders