Ormandy v Police - [2021] NZHC 3298

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-409-107

[2021] NZHC 3298

BETWEEN
JESSIE ORMANDY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 25 November 2021

Appearances:

M E Rout for Appellant

J E Lancaster for Respondent

Judgment:

3 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 December 2021 at 4 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: .

ORMANDY v POLICE [2021] NZHC 3298 [3 December 2021]

[1] Mr Jessie Ormandy was sentenced to a cumulative term of nine months’ imprisonment by Judge Gilbert on one charge of intentional damage that he committed whilst a serving prisoner at Christchurch Prison.1 He appeals that sentence on the basis it was manifestly excessive.

Factual background

[2] On 27 August 2020, Mr Ormandy, together with several other inmates, that included his co-offenders, Messrs Hurrell, Ratahi, Brooking and Jetson, broke out of their prison cells and caused considerable damage. The genesis of this disturbance appears to have been advice received by Mr Hurrell that afternoon that he was going to be moved to a high security unit. He refused to co-operate with Corrections staff and was left in his cell.

[3] The subsequent narrative begins with Mr Brooking breaking off a metal TV bracket and using it to pry open the cell observation window in his cell door. Mr Ormandy, using the same method, did the same. After smashing the observation window, he then ripped up his bedding but was unable to leave his cell.

[4] Mr Brooking, on the other hand, was able to exit his cell and he assisted Mr Ratahi and Mr Hurrell out of their cells. Some two hours later, they also assisted Mr Ormandy to escape from his cell. Once released, Mr Ormandy threw apples at the guardroom, smashed a camera monitor and ripped another camera monitor from its bracket. Mr Jetson was subsequently assisted out of his cell via another damaged door before the group were brought under control by the Corrections Site Emergency Response Team.

[5] Over the period they were out of their cells, the five men caused damage to fittings, fixtures, furniture and other miscellaneous items within the prison unit. Overall, the total cost to repair the damage was estimated at some $160,000, with the damage done to the cell doors being particularly expensive because they cost many thousands of dollars to replace.

1 Police v Ormandy [2021] NZDC 12444; Crimes Act 1961, s 269(2)(a).

District Court sentence

[6] In approaching the sentencing exercise before him, Judge Gilbert had the benefit of having reviewed the sentencing notes in respect of three of Mr Ormandy’s co-offenders. The Judge described the offending as essentially involving a group of young men “behaving like idiots” and showing their defiance within the prison environment by causing a substantial amount of damage. Aggravating factors identified included the custodial environment in which the offending took place and the extent of…

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 Ormandy v Police

Details

AGLC: Ormandy v Police [2021] NZHC 3298
Case: [2021] NZHC 3298
Decision Date: 3 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jessie Ormandy was sentenced to a nine-month term of imprisonment for intentionally causing damage while in prison. He appeals, arguing the sentence was manifestly excessive. The High Court found that the sentence was appropriate and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the District Court Judge had appropriately considered the principles of parity in sentencing co-offenders, and that the sentence was consistent with those of Ormandy's co-offenders. The court also found that the Judge had appropriately considered Ormandy's previous convictions and personal circumstances in arriving at the sentence. The appeal was dismissed.

The court heard arguments that the District Court Judge had failed to properly consider Ormandy's role in the offending, and that he should not have received an uplift for his previous convictions. The court found that the Judge had appropriately assessed the roles of the co-offenders and had considered the relevance of Ormandy's previous convictions, including his charge of escaping from police custody. The court also heard arguments that the Judge had failed to adequately recognise Ormandy's personal circumstances, including his difficult upbringing while in State care. The court found that the Judge had considered Ormandy's personal background and had appropriately assessed the level of discount to be applied. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and dismissed the appeal.

Orders