Newton v Police - [2023] NZHC 3704

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-409-220

[2023] NZHC 3704

BETWEEN
MATTHEW ALLEN NEWTON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 13 December 2023

Appearances:

R J T George for Appellant

W J S Mohammed for Respondent

Judgment:

14 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 December 2023 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

NEWTON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 3704

Introduction

[1] On 12 October 2023, Matthew Newton was sentenced in the District Court1 to 21 months’ imprisonment in relation to the following offending:

(a)contravenes protection order (family violence);2

(b)possess methamphetamine;3

(c)possess methamphetamine utensils;4

(d)possess cannabis;5

(e)refused officer’s request to give blood;6 and

(f)two charges of driving while disqualified (third or subsequent).7

[2] He appeals the sentence on the grounds that the starting point applied was too high and the uplift for his previous convictions should not have been imposed.

Facts

[3] Mr Newton was disqualified from driving for six months on 8 March 2023. He was discovered driving in breach of this disqualification by police on 27 April 2023. On the same day, Mr Newton arrived at the victim’s address, in whose favour a protection order had been made in respect of Mr Newton. Nothing further happened that day after the victim told Mr Newton to leave and never return.

1      New Zealand Police v Newton [2023] NZDC 22782.
2      Family Violence Act 2018, s 112; maximum penalty 3 years’ imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2); maximum penalty 6 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $1,000.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 13(1)(a) and (3); maximum penalty 1 year imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $500.
5      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 7(1)(a) and (2); maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $500.
6      Land Transport Act 1998, s 60(1)(a) and (2); maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $4,500. The Court must also order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 6 months or more.
7      Land Transport Act, s 32(1)(a) and (4); maximum penalty 2 years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $6,000. The Court must also order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 1 year or more.

[4] However, on 4 May, Mr Newton returned. He stood on the front porch, yelling incoherently. The victim’s daughter, frightened by the yelling, told her mother he was there. The victim walked outside to tell Mr Newton to leave. He approached and yelled in her face. He raised his fist and held it by the victim’s head as he continued yelling. The victim cowered, believing Mr Newton was going to assault her. The victim’s daughter began to scream, prompting Mr Newton to leave.

[5] On 7 May, Mr Newton was again found driving while disqualified.…

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 Newton v Police

Details

AGLC: Newton v Police [2023] NZHC 3704
Case: [2023] NZHC 3704
Decision Date: 14 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Newton appeals his 21-month imprisonment sentence for multiple offences, including breaching a protection order, possessing drugs, and driving while disqualified. The appeal focuses on the starting point for the protection order breach and the overall uplift for previous convictions. The court examines whether the starting point was too high and if the uplift for previous convictions, including drug and driving offences, was appropriate. The appeal hinges on the principles of sentencing, particularly whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The District Court set a starting point of 12 months for breaching the protection order, considering the threat of violence and psychological abuse against the victim and her child. An uplift of eight months was applied for the driving while disqualified convictions, two months for refusing to give a blood specimen, and one month for drug possession. A global starting point of 23 months was reduced to 21 months due to totality. The court also applied an 18% discount for Newton's guilty plea.

Newton argues that a starting point of eight months would be more appropriate and that the uplift for previous convictions amounts to double counting. The police counter that the starting point and uplifts were justified given the seriousness of the offences and Newton's extensive criminal history. They highlight the threat of violence to the victim and her child, the psychological impact on the family, and Newton's failure to rehabilitate.

The court agrees with the District Court's starting point and uplifts, finding the sentence within the appropriate range. While the uplift for the blood specimen refusal was slightly high, the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledges the generous guilty plea discount, which largely offsets any sternness in the sentence.

The appeal is dismissed, and Newton's 21-month imprisonment sentence is upheld. The court finds that, considering the range of offences, their seriousness, and Newton's criminal history, the sentence is justified.

Orders