Paramore v Police - [2014] NZHC 646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2013-441-38 [2014] NZHC 646

BETWEEN
JEREMY PETER PARAMORE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 2 April 2014

Counsel:

P J Jensen and C E Church for the Appellant
R Guthrie for the Respondent

Judgment:

2 April 2014

ORAL JUDGMENT OF BROWN J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Napier
Counsel: P Jensen, Ahuriri, Napier 4144

PARAMORE v POLICE [2014] NZHC 646 [2 April 2014]

Introduction

[1] The appellant appeals against a decision of District Court Judge J C Down in the District Court at Hastings on 7 November 2013 imposing a term of imprisonment of two years cumulative on an earlier sentence of 14 months imprisonment.

Background

[2] In June 2013 the Hawkes Bay Police began an operation codenamed “Operation X Wing” that focused on the property dealings of the appellant and his associates. During the operation it became apparent that the appellant was a prolific receiver of stolen property. Rather than take possession of the property and then attempt to sell it, the appellant would generally broker a deal between the burglar and the end receiver thus reducing his chances of being caught with stolen property.

[3] The appellant pleaded guilty at a relatively early stage to three counts of burglary and was sentenced by District Court Judge A J Adeane on 4 September
2013. From a starting point of 18 months imprisonment, adopted by reference to R v Columbus,1 Judge Adeane imposed a sentence of 14 months after allowing a reduction of four months for the moderately early guilty plea. He also imposed six month release conditions.

[4] The appellant was also charged with seven counts of conspiracy to receive stolen goods. On each count the property was worth in excess of $1,000 and on one occasion in excess of $10,000. Each of those charges carried a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. It is the sentence on those charges to which the current appeal relates.

The District Court decision

[5] The scale of the appellant’s offending is reflected in three paragraphs of

Judge Down’s decision:

[4] Between 2 May and 21 May police were able to retrieve in excess of
6400 text messages received and sent from your phone. There was also

1 R v Columbus [2008] NZCA 192.

another number identified as belonging to you and a further 8600 text messages between 22 May and 14 June were recovered. An analysis of those text messages showed that your offending was, indeed, prolific.

…

[10] It is clear that some of the text messages revealed that you would text associates to provide orders of what specifically you were looking for and arranged for them to go on missions to burgle homes.

[11] As I said to your counsel, I consider this receiving offending to be amongst the most serious receiving that I have seen. I have seen worse, of course, and I do not put you at or near the maximum penalty but I do, even with your…

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 Paramore v Police

Details

AGLC: Paramore v Police [2014] NZHC 646
Case: [2014] NZHC 646
Decision Date: 2 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Paramore v Police involved the appellant, Jeremy Peter Paramore, appealing against a decision of the District Court Judge J C Down. The appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years cumulative on an earlier sentence of 14 months imprisonment. The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the starting point of four years imprisonment was too high and whether the cumulative sentence of two years was manifestly excessive. The court's reasoning was that the starting point of four years for the seven charges of conspiracy to receive was within the appropriate range and that the court was not justified in intervening. The court also found that the cumulative sentence of two years was not manifestly excessive as it was within the acceptable range.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed. This means that the original sentence imposed by the District Court Judge J C Down was upheld and the appellant's appeal against the sentence was unsuccessful. The court found that the sentence was within the appropriate range and that there was no error in the sentence imposed on conviction. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the appellant's appeal against the sentence was accordingly dismissed.

Orders