Moore v Police - [2015] NZHC 616

IN THE HIGH COURTOF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2014-412-000042 [2015] NZHC 616

BETWEEN
MACAYLA RENEE MOORE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 30 March 2015

Appearances:

B P Kilkelly for Appellant
R D Smith for Respondent

Judgment:

30 March 2015

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Background and District Court sentencing

[1] On 10 December 2014, Judge Phillips in the District Court sentenced the

appellant to three months’ home detention (with standard post-detention conditions),

150 hours’ community work, and ordered her to pay $500 as emotional harm reparation to the victim by 31 March 2015.1 This sentence arose from the appellant’s guilty plea to a charge of assault with intent to injure on 6 October 2013.2

[2] The facts giving rise to these charges were set out in Judge Phillips’

sentencing notes as follows:

[3] It is just another example however of drunken young people in groups in areas in Dunedin, in the early hours of the morning, and violence then ensuing. This occurred in October of last year. You and your sister were in a car park, just after midnight, grossly intoxicated. The victim was in the same car park. You say you had issues with her before. I understand that really there were not any earlier issues but she was brought into an

1 R v Moore DC Dunedin CRI-2013-012-2986, 10 December 2014. These sentences were suspended by the District Court on 22 December 2014, pending determination of this appeal.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2). Punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

argument situation that you and your sister had put together with other people who were in the car park. You grabbed her by the hair, you punched her in the back of the head and then you punched her a further three or four times in the head. She fell to the ground, holding onto you, trying to stop further blows. She suffered injuries. I have a victim impact statement from her and the impact of all of this on her, where she suffered an injury to the back of her head. You say that was not your doing. I note that you and her went to the ground together. She had problems with the tendons and muscles in her neck and shoulders, a sore and swollen nose, grazes and bruising, two weeks off work; she was scared about going into town; she has incurred costs and describes your attack as vicious and unnecessary. I think that is a summary that is effective and realistic of your actions that night.

[4] Your role here is just entirely aggravated by the fact that you have a prior conviction within a short space of time – October 2013 where you were convicted of a charge of assault with intent to injure and you were on release conditions at the time – sentence conditions – when you were again acting violently in a drunken condition.

[3] Judge Phillips then progressed to consider sentencing, noting that…

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 Moore v Police

Details

AGLC: Moore v Police [2015] NZHC 616
Case: [2015] NZHC 616
Decision Date: 30 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Moore v Police, the appellant, Macayla Renee Moore, appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court, which was three months' home detention, 150 hours of community work, and a requirement to pay emotional harm reparation of $500 to the victim. The appeal arose from a charge of assault with intent to injure, which occurred when the appellant, while intoxicated, assaulted the victim in a car park, causing injuries to the victim. The appellant argued that a sentence of community detention would have been more appropriate, allowing her to continue her studies at Otago Polytechnic. The Crown argued that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's recent history of similar offending.

The High Court considered the appellant's submissions that the District Court Judge failed to give due regard to her personal mitigating circumstances and that the sentence was disproportionately severe. The Court found that the Judge had considered the appellant's personal circumstances, including her therapeutic work and compliance with bail conditions, but ultimately determined that other sentencing principles, such as denunciation, deterrence, and accountability, warranted a sentence of home detention. The Court also noted that the Judge had considered the impact of the sentence on the appellant's studies and kept the home detention sentence to the minimum appropriate range. The Court concluded that the appellant had not met the threshold for granting an appeal against sentence, and the appeal was dismissed.

The Court made a direction that the home detention sentence for the appellant would commence from 4 p.m. on Thursday, 2 April 2015, to enable her to complete the current semester's study at Otago Polytechnic.

Orders