Meads-Petley v Police - [2021] NZHC 1724

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2021-463-000067

[2021] NZHC 1724

BRAIDEN STEFAN MEADS-PETLEY

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 8 July 2021

Appearances:

C Treanor for the Appellant

G Banuelos for the Respondent

Judgment:

9 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 July 2021 at 4 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

BRAIDEN STEFAN MEADS-PETLEY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 1724 [9 July 2021]

Introduction

[1] Mr Meads-Petley appeals his sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment imposed on 13 May 2021 in the Rotorua District Court in respect of the following charges:

(a)behaving in a disorderly manner;1

(b)wilful damage;2

(c)operating a motor vehicle carelessly;3

(d)driving a motor vehicle with evidence of a controlled drug in his blood;4

(e)driving whilst disqualified;5

(f)assaulting a police officer;6

(g)failing to answer bail;7

(h)breaching prison release conditions.8

[2] Mr Meads-Petley contends that the Judge erred by adopting a starting point for the lead charge of assaulting a police officer which was too high and uplifts for the remaining charges which were also too high. The notice of appeal was filed one working day out of time as there was difficulty arranging contact with Mr Meads- Petley at Waikeria Prison. The respondent does not oppose leave. I grant leave to appeal accordingly.

1      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 4(1)(a): carrying a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine.
2      Section 11(1)(a): carrying a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 37(1): carrying a maximum penalty of a $3,000 fine and the court may order that the person is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for such period as it thinks fit.
4      Section 58(1)(b): carrying a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a $4,500 fine.
5      Section 32(1)(a): carrying a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a $4,500 fine.
6      Crimes Act 1961, s 192(2): carrying a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
7      Bail Act 2000, s 38(a): carrying a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
8      Sentencing Act 2002, s 96(1): carrying a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.

Background

[3]The offending is in respect of various incidents.

2 September 2020

[4] The appellant had been admitted to hospital for the past 13 days for stomach surgery.

[5] On 2 September 2020, he woke to a nurse conducting regular routine vital sign checks. He became agitated. He threw a television remote into the corridor causing it to smash along with patient files and paperwork.

[6] The appellant walked off down the corridor in an agitated and aggressive manner. He threatened staff, challenging them to take him on, referring to fighting. He was subsequently restrained by hospital security.

[7] After calming down and being released by security, the appellant kicked a door causing the glass panel to smash. He then picked up a metal IV like pole and began swinging…

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 Meads-Petley 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: [2021] NZHC 1724
Decision Date: 9 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Braidden Stefan Meads-Petley against his 21-month imprisonment sentence imposed by the Rotorua District Court was heard by Walker J. The appeal challenged the sentence on the grounds that the starting point for the lead charge of assaulting a police officer and the uplifts for the remaining charges were too high. The appeal was allowed one working day out of time due to difficulties in contacting the appellant at Waikeria Prison. The respondent did not oppose the granting of leave to appeal.

The court considered two main issues: whether the starting point of 18 months for the lead offence was excessively high, and whether the uplift of nine or 10 months for the remaining charges was appropriate. The appellant's counsel argued that the starting point was too high compared to similar cases and that a starting point of 12 months would have been appropriate. The Crown's counsel argued that the uplift was necessary for denunciation and deterrence due to the seriousness of the remaining charges, including driving while under the influence and while subject to release conditions, along with relevant previous convictions.

The court found that the starting point of 18 months for the lead offence was too high and that a starting point of 14 months was more appropriate. The court also found the uplift of nine or 10 months to be too high, considering that an uplift of six months would have been sufficient. The court substituted a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment for the original 21 months. The decision to grant leave for substitution of the sentence for a full-time residential rehabilitation program was not altered.

Orders