Legal Research
Cases
Palmer v Police

Palmer v Police

Case [2024] NZHC 1634 20 June 2024

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2024-425-24

[2024] NZHC 1634

BETWEEN
JESSICA MAREE PALMER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 17 June 2024

Appearances:

J A T Ross for Appellant

S E McKenzie for Respondent

Judgment:

20 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 June 2024 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

PALMER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 1634 [20 June 2024]

Introduction

[1] Jessica Maree Palmer pleaded guilty to 47 charges. Most of these were dishonesty-related, but they also involved drug offending, driving offending and offences involving the police.

[2] There were a substantial number of shoplifting offences. These included 17 charges of theft under $500,1 and one charge each of theft between $500-$10002 and theft over $1000.3 There were also charges relating to shoplifting from premises which she had been trespassed from. These included three charges of burglary by day (under $500),4 two charges of other burglary,5 two charges of wilful trespass,6 and a related charge of behaving threateningly.7

[3] The driving charges included two charges of dangerous driving,8 one charge of failing to remain stopped,9 two charges of failing to stop for red/blue flashing lights,10 seven charges of failing to comply with prohibition,11 one charge of failing to stop,12 and one charge of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle.13

[4] The police charges included two charges of failing to answer bail,14 one charge of assaults police,15 and one charge of resisting arrest.16

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d) — maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
2      Sections 219 and 223(c) — maximum penalty of one year of imprisonment.
3      Sections 219 and 223(b) — maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 231(1)(a) — maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 231(1)(a) — maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment.
6      Trespass Act 1980, ss 3(1) and 11(2)(a) — maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
7      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a) — maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
8      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b) — maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment, $4,500 fine.
9      Sections 52A(1)(b) and 114 — maximum penalty of $10,000 fine.
10     Sections 52A(1)(a)(ii), 52A(4), 52A(3), 52A(6) and 114(2) — maximum penalty of $10,000 fine.
11     Section 52(1)(c) — maximum penalty of $10,000 fine.
12     Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 177(1)(a) and (b) — maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
13     Crimes Act, s 226(2) — maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
14     Bail Act 2000, s 38(b) — maximum penalty of one year of imprisonment, $2,000 fine.
15     Crimes Act, s 192(2) — maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
16     Summary Offences Act, s 23(a) — maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.

[5] There was also one charge of possession of a pipe for methamphetamine17 and one charge of possession of cannabis.18

[6] On 7 March 2024, she was…

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 Palmer v Police

Details

AGLC: Palmer v Police [2024] NZHC 1634
Case: [2024] NZHC 1634
Decision Date: 20 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Jessica Maree Palmer against her sentence for multiple offences, including shoplifting and driving-related charges, was heard by the High Court of New Zealand. The District Court had sentenced Palmer to two years and three months' imprisonment, which she appealed on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. The key issue before the High Court was whether the starting point for sentencing was appropriate given the nature and value of the offences committed. The High Court found that while the starting point for the burglary charges was indeed too high, the substantial discounts applied by the District Court reduced the overall sentence to a level that was not manifestly excessive. The High Court adjusted the starting point for the burglary charges to 10 months' imprisonment and applied uplifts and discounts according to the specific circumstances of the case. After applying the appropriate discounts, the High Court concluded that the effective sentence should be 14 months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment, meaning Palmer had already served the remainder of her sentence. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence on one of the burglary charges, and substituted a new sentence of 14 months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment. Special conditions for Palmer's release, including mandatory drug counselling and restrictions on association with a co-offender, were also imposed.

Orders