[1] The appellant, Kingi Matchitt, appeals his sentence1 of 25 months’ imprisonment in respect of two charges of burglary2 and one charge of theft3 against three victims in three separate incidents.

[2]Mr Matchitt pleaded guilty to all charges.

[3] The appellant has 35 previous convictions, the most serious being a burglary conviction for which he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He has 15 previous convictions for burglary, seven previous convictions for shoplifting and three previous convictions for theft, although I note they are not recent convictions.

1      New Zealand Police v Matchitt [2023] NZDC 102320.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a). The maximum sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 219 and 223(d). The maximum sentence is three months’ imprisonment.

MATCHITT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 1745 [5 July 2023]

The offending

27 September 2022

[4] The offending leading to the theft charge and the first burglary charge occurred on 27 September 2022, at two separate addresses.

[5] At approximately 9.16 am the first victim was operating his business from his home in Murrays Bay, Auckland. The appellant drove onto the victim’s driveway and entered the victim’s shop. The appellant asked whether the victim sold jewellery or any other luxury items and the victim responded no, explaining that he only sells products relating to pets. The appellant asked for 15 dog harnesses. When the victim was retrieving the harnesses from the back of his shop, the appellant went to the front of the house and peered through a window before returning to the shop to check that the victim was still occupied, and then running to the front door. At the front door, the defendant grabbed a pair of Adidas Yeezy shoes, valued at $370, and put the shoes in his pants before walking back to his vehicle and driving away. The appellant was under the influence of cannabis at the time.

[6] Between 11.15 am and 11.41 am on the same day, the second victims’ address in Sunnynook, Auckland was burgled. The couple who lived in the house arrived home at 12.25 pm to find their property scattered around the house and a high-vis jacket in the lounge that neither victim owned. The appellant’s DNA was identified on the jacket. The appellant was identified on CCTV footage moving to and from the victims’ property, carrying several items out of the property on each occasion. The footage showed the appellant arriving in a high-vis vest and then leaving without one. The items stolen from the victims’ property had a combined value of $62,080. They included nine designer handbags, 10 pairs of designer shoes and one designer scarf. The appellant traded the stolen…

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 Matchitt v Police

Details

AGLC: Matchitt v Police [2023] NZHC 1745
Case: [2023] NZHC 1745
Decision Date: 5 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kingi Floyd Matchitt appeals his sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment for two charges of burglary and one charge of theft against three victims. The District Court had adopted a starting point of three years and seven months’ imprisonment, applying a 35 per cent discount to arrive at an end sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment. Matchitt submits that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the District Court should have converted the sentence to home detention. The Crown submits that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that home detention would not be appropriate. The High Court found that the District Court erred in not discounting the sentence for Matchitt’s background factors and in not adequately discounting the sentence for the reparation payment. The Court applied a further 10 per cent discount for the background factors and rehabilitation, reducing the end sentence to 21 months’ imprisonment. The Court found that, with the adjusted sentence, Matchitt is eligible for home detention and that the purposes of sentencing could be met by a sentence of home detention. The appeal was allowed, and Matchitt’s sentence was substituted for 11 months’ home detention. Matchitt was also ordered to pay $25,000 in reparation to the victims.

Orders