Newton v Police

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2019-454-16

[2019] NZHC 1923

BETWEEN

JESSE ARIADNE NEWTON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 7 August 2019

Counsel:

J Younger for Appellant

K T Van der Plas for Crown

Judgment:

8 August 2019


JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J


Introduction

[1]                 On 13 May 2019, the appellant, Mr Newton, was sentenced by Judge Moss in the Palmerston North District Court to two years and three months’ imprisonment on the following charges:1

(a)threatening to cause grievous bodily harm;2

(b)assault with intent to injure;3

(c)three charges of driving whilst disqualified;4


1      New Zealand Police v Newton [2019] NZDC 8873.

2      Crimes Act 1961, s 306, maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

3      Section 193; maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.

4      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and (4); maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or a fine of $6000.

NEWTON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1923 [8 August 2019]

(d)possession of a class B drug;5 and

(e)possession of utensils.6

[2]                 He appeals his sentence on the ground that the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive.

[3]The Crown opposes the appeal.

Factual background

[4]                 Mr Newton and the victim were previously in a relationship for seven years. There have been five previous family harm incidents between Mr Newton and the victim which have included the issuing of two Police safety orders.

[5]                 On 6 November 2017, Mr Newton was disqualified from driving for a period of one year and one day. He had 13 prior convictions for driving either whilst disqualified, suspended or revoked.

[6]                 On 19 October 2018, Mr Newton was seen by Police riding a motorcycle and stopped. He has never held a motorcycle licence.

[7]                 On 23 October 2018, Mr Newton was stopped by Police whilst driving. A few days later, on 27 October, he went to the victim’s home address. They started arguing and Mr Newton threw the victim onto the bed, grabbing her around the throat with both hands and squeezing her neck until she passed out.

[8]                 When the victim regained consciousness, she kept telling Mr Newton that she could not breathe. He responded by threatening to choke her again and, when she escaped next door, he drove away.


5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 7(1)(a) and (2); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a fine of $500.

6      Sections 13(1)(a) and (3); maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment and/or a fine of $500.

[9]                 Some weeks later, on 6 December 2018, Police located Mr Newton in a car and arrested him. A small bag containing cannabis oil was identified in the car, as was a glass pipe.

District Court decision

[10]             The Judge observed that there were two strands to Mr Newton’s offending: the driving offending and the more serious domestic violence offending.7

[11]             Discussing the charge of threatening to do grievous bodily harm, the Judge said:

[6] The assault with intent to injure involved restricting her airway to the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Newton v Police and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] NZHC 1923
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jesse Ariadne Newton appeals against his sentence imposed by the Palmerston North District Court, arguing that the sentence is manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard and dismissed by Churchman J of the High Court of New Zealand. The key issue for the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the District Court had wrongly identified the charge of threatening to do grievous bodily harm as the lead charge and had misapplied the cases of Taueki and Nuku v R. The Crown submitted that the Judge was entitled to use the charge of threatening to do grievous bodily harm as the lead charge and that any error made in referencing the cases of Taueki and Nuku was not sufficient to warrant a different sentence being imposed. The court found that the Judge was justified in taking the threatening to do grievous bodily harm as the lead charge and that the start point of three years on the threatening to kill charge was not manifestly excessive. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the District Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.