Murray v Police

[2015] NZHC 1956

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-419-15 [2015] NZHC 1956

BETWEEN

LANCE GRAY MURRAY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	(on the papers)
Appearances:	S Cameron for the Appellant T Needham for the Respondent
Judgment:	18 August 2015

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J (Formal sentence on appeal)

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 August 2015 at 3:00 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors / Counsel:

Ms S N Cameron, Barrister, Hamilton
Ms T Needham, Almao Douch, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

MURRAY v POLICE [2015] NZHC 1956 [18 August 2015]

[1]      By judgment dated 29 July 2015 I allowed Mr Murray’s appeal against a sentence of 23 months imprisonment.1     The sentence was quashed.   For reasons recorded in the earlier judgment I concluded that a sentence of home detention was appropriate.   A formal substituted sentence of home detention was not imposed because an up to date home detention report was not available.   Mr Murray was granted bail pending receipt of a report.

[2]      A report has now been received; the report dated 13 August 2015 at page 2. The proposed address is suitable and the owners of the property have consented.  A formal sentence can now be imposed.

[3]      The home detention sentence will be for 9 months.  This is for the particular reasons referred to at [31] of the earlier judgment – time already served in custody – and because Mr Murray has been on bail on a 24 hour curfew since on or about 29

July 2015, and for the broader reasons otherwise recorded in the earlier judgment.

Formal sentence

[4]      The appellant is sentenced to home detention for 9 months, commencing on the date of this judgment.

[5]      The sentence is to be served at the address to which the appellant was bailed and being the address referred to in the home detention report dated 13 August 2015.

[6]      The sentence is subject to the following special conditions:

(a)       The appellant is to notify a probation officer before commencing, terminating or varying any employment or voluntary work.

(b)The appellant  is  not  to  undertake work, paid  or voluntary,  which involves the handling of money, dealing in credit, or the provision of

financial advice, without the approval of a probation officer.

1      Murray v NZ Police [2015] NZHC 1771.

(c)       The appellant is to attend and complete any treatment or counselling

as may be directed by a probation officer.

Woodhouse J