Murrell v Police - [2024] NZHC 300

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2023-454-42

[2024] NZHC 300

BETWEEN
JARRAD JOHN BARRIE MURRELL

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 22 February 2024 (via VMR)

Appearances:

Appellant in Person

G L Duncan for Respondent

Judgment:

23 February 2024

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1] On 1 November 2023 Jarrad John Barrie Murrell was sentenced by Judge Edwards in the Palmerston North District Court on two charges of driving while disqualified1 and one charge of shoplifting (under $500) of scissors and a cable valued at $59.00.2

[2] Mr Murrell is self-represented. He drafted and filed the notice of appeal himself and also represented himself at the hearing of this appeal.

Background to offending

[3] Mr Murrell was disqualified from driving on 23 June 2023. He had driven while suspended on 5 October 2022.

1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a) and (3).
2 Crimes Act 1961 s 219 and 223(d).

MURRELL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 300 [23 February 2024]

[4] On 24 June 2023, shortly after he had been disqualified from driving, he drove a vehicle which contained other family members including an infant. When stopped his explanation was that he had to drive to a nearby motel.

[5] In late June 2023, the appellant entered The Warehouse with two female associates. The appellant was handed two packs of scissors and a coaxial cable (collectively valued $59) and concealed these down the front of his pants. He then left the store without making any attempt at paying.

[6] On 9 October 2023, he drove a van early in the morning at a time he was disqualified. His explanation was he had been living in the van, which had been stolen. He had located it and had to move it. In addition to being disqualified from driving at this time, Mr Murrell was also subject to a bail condition prohibiting him from driving.

The District Court decision

[7] The sentencing notes are brief. The Judge canvassed the facts of the offences and then determined the appropriate sentence. She noted that the disqualification period could be cumulative on the disqualification that the appellant was already serving. She determined that the disqualification period for each of the driving sentences could run concurrently. She imposed a total period of disqualification of six months to commence on 20 December 2023, which was the date the existing period of disqualification expired.

[8] She imposed 80 hours of community service for each driving offence and 40 hours for the theft. However, she determined the community service hours could all be served concurrently. The final sentence was therefore a total of 80 hours community work together with disqualification from driving for a period of six months and an order to pay reparation in the sum of $59.00 to The Warehouse.

[9] In determining what the Judge concluded was the appropriate sentence of “a relatively limited number of community work hours” the Judge took…

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 Murrell v Police

Details

AGLC: Murrell v Police [2024] NZHC 300
Case: [2024] NZHC 300
Decision Date: 23 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Murrell v Police saw Jarrad John Barrie Murrell appealing against his sentence imposed by Judge Edwards in the Palmerston North District Court. Murrell was convicted on two charges of driving while disqualified and one charge of shoplifting, resulting in a sentence of 80 hours of community service, a six-month driving disqualification, and an order to pay reparation to The Warehouse. Murrell, who represented himself, argued that the overall penalties were excessive, especially the driving disqualification, which impeded his ability to find employment. He also claimed that his lawyer was negligent, unaware of the two driving while disqualified charges, and that he did not know his bail conditions prohibited him from driving.

The High Court assessed Murrell's claims under section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which mandates that an appeal can only be allowed if there is an error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed. The court found that Murrell's argument about double jeopardy was unfounded, as the sentences were to run concurrently, and the driving disqualification period was the minimum allowable. The court also dismissed Murrell's claims regarding his lawyer's awareness of the charges and the relevance of his bail conditions. Regarding the excessiveness of the penalties, the court noted that the total community service hours were appropriate, and while the disqualification was a concern, it was not excessive given the aggravating factors.

The court concluded that there were no errors in the sentencing decision and no basis for a different sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Orders