Moon v Police - [2024] NZHC 3958

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-567

[2024] NZHC 3958

BETWEEN
STEVEN MOON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 December 2024

Appearances:

A H Jones for appellant

R H Vercoe for respondent

Judgment:

20 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF JOHNSTONE J

(appeal against sentence)

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 December 2024 at 11am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

MOON v POLICE [2024] NZHC 3958 [20 December 2024]

[1] On 13 September 2024, Steven Moon was sentenced in the District Court at Manukau to serve 29 months’ imprisonment.1 He appeals against that sentence, saying it is manifestly excessive.

[2] I must allow the appeal if satisfied that for any reason there is an error in the sentence imposed and a different sentence should be imposed.2 The focus is on the overall end sentence rather than the process by which it was reached. I should not intervene if the sentence is within range and can be justified by accepted sentencing principles.3

Mr Moon’s prior offending

[3] At the age of 36, Mr Moon has an extensive criminal history, including 29 convictions for dishonesty-related offending such as burglary, theft, and unlawfully getting into a car, accrued in the period from 2006 to 2023.

[4] On 4 March 2024, Mr Moon was sentenced, in respect of a bout of retail thefts committed during August to November 2023, to serve six months’ imprisonment, with standard and special release conditions. And he was disqualified from driving for six months. Mr Moon had been in custody, prior to the 4 March 2024 sentencing, for some months. He was therefore released from custody on 13 March 2024.

Mr Moon’s offending, sentenced in September 2024

[5] The offending the subject of this sentence appeal commenced less than three weeks after Mr Moon’s release, when on 31 March 2024 he was found driving in Ōtara while still disqualified.4 He said he knew he should not be driving, but was taking his children to see friends.

[6] It appears Mr Moon was not charged until 15 April 2024, when on that day a summons to appear on 23 April 2024 was issued.

1      New Zealand Police v Moon [2024] NZDC 24712.
2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250.
3      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279; [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [36].
4      Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA), ss 32(1)(a) and 32(3). Maximum penalty: three month’s imprisonment or $4,500 fine.

[7] In the meantime, on 1 April 2024, Mr Moon and an associate stole some clothes from a chain store at Botany.5 They had arrived in a Toyota displaying stolen registration plates. He was not charged until 24 June 2024.

[8] And on 6 April 2024, Mr Moon was again found driving in Ōtara while disqualified.6 He was not charged until 21 April 2024, when a further summons was issued.

[9] On 23 April 2024, Mr…

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 Moon v Police

Details

AGLC: Moon v Police [2024] NZHC 3958
Case: [2024] NZHC 3958
Decision Date: 20 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Steven Moon appealed the sentence imposed on him by the Manukau District Court for various offences, including driving while disqualified, theft, and assault using a vehicle as a weapon. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence of 29 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The appeal hinged on the starting point for the lead offence, the uplift for other offending, and the adjustments for personal circumstances.

The sentencing judge selected a starting point of 24 months for the lead offence, which the court found to be too high. The court noted that comparable cases had resulted in starting points of 18 to 20 months for similar offences. The court also found that the total uplift for the other offending should have been at least 14 months, rather than the 10 months imposed. Additionally, the court concluded that the uplift for Mr Moon’s personal circumstances was inadequate, given his extensive criminal history and offending while on bail. An uplift of at least six months was necessary to adequately address the sentencing purposes of promoting a sense of responsibility and community protection.

The court held that, in light of these errors, the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and the appeal was dismissed. The court declined to admit new evidence regarding Mr Moon’s personal background and rehabilitative efforts, as it would not have changed the outcome.

Orders