Millar v Police - [2016] NZHC 991

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2016-443-014

CRI 2016-443-015 [2016] NZHC 991

BETWEEN
JAMIE ELIZABETH MILLAR

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 11 May 2016

Counsel:

A Leonard and K Marriner for Appellant
J E Bourke for Respondent

Judgment:

16 May 2016

JUDGMENT OF BROWN J

Background

[1] On 12 April 2016 the appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Hawera to one charge of burglary1 and one charge of threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm.2 Judge L Harrison sentenced the appellant to a term of imprisonment of one year and seven months.3 The appellant appeals that sentence.

Circumstances of the offending

[2] According to the summary of facts, the appellant and the victim knew one another but they were not in a relationship. The appellant became fixated on the victim in the months prior to the offending and tried a number of times to befriend
her. On 22 August 2015, the appellant was trespassed from the victim’s house as a

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 231. Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, s 306. Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Police v Millar [2016] NZDC 6276.

MILLAR v NZ POLICE [2016] NZHC 991 [16 May 2016]

result of unwanted contact. On 29 August 2015 she was issued a written warning for criminal harassment.

[3] At approximately 12.30am on 16 December 2015 the appellant arrived at the victim’s house, having walked about one kilometre to get there. She threw stones at the house and the victim’s car. She then kicked the front door and banged on the front porch windows. The victim was woken and called the Police. The appellant smashed a window but, unable to get in, she went to the back door, smashed the glass panel on the door with a brick and unlocked the door.

[4] She proceeded to search the house for the victim who had barricaded herself in her bedroom to protect herself. The appellant forced her way into the victim’s bedroom and began punching her about the head and upper body, about 10 times in total. The victim managed to convince her to stop and soon after the Police arrived.

[5] Just before 10pm on 9 February 2016 an off-duty police officer saw the appellant walking towards the area where the victim lives and notified on-duty police officers who went to the appellant’s home. They spoke to the appellant’s mother who told them that the appellant had sent a text to her stating that she was going to die that night and that nobody would find her.

[6] Another police officer went to the victim’s home and arrested the appellant when she arrived. The appellant told the police that she was there to hurt the victim like last time: that she intended to tie her up and torture her with a baseball bat, sexually abuse her and burn the house down. She said that she was then going to steal the victim’s car…

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 Millar v Police

Details

AGLC: Millar v Police [2016] NZHC 991
Case: [2016] NZHC 991
Decision Date: 16 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the appellant, Jamie Elizabeth Millar, appealed against her sentence for burglary and threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was excessive or if a different sentence should be imposed. The key legal issue was whether the starting point for the sentence was appropriate given the severity of the offending.

The court examined the circumstances of the offending, which involved the appellant assaulting the victim during a burglary and making threats to kill while on bail. The court considered the harm caused to the victim, the appellant's mental health issues, and the appropriate starting point for the sentence. The court found that the starting point of 32 months was at the higher end of the appropriate range but not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the burglary, the threatening charge, and the fact that it occurred while the appellant was on bail. The court also noted that the sentence of 19 months' imprisonment would actually reflect a starting point of slightly less than 30 months if the deductions were made consecutively.

The appeal was dismissed as the court did not find the sentence to be manifestly excessive. The court emphasised that the focus should be on whether the end sentence imposed is within range, rather than the process by which the sentence was reached. The final orders were that the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of 19 months' imprisonment was upheld.

Orders