Partridge v Police - [2017] NZHC 106

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2017-425-000001 [2017] NZHC 106

BETWEEN
RORY DAMIEN PARTRIDGE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 2 February 2017

Appearances:

Appellant in person
S N McKenzie for the Respondent

Judgment:

9 February 2017

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] Mr Partridge appeals against his sentence of 23 months’ imprisonment imposed by a District Court Judge on 2 December 2016. Mr Partridge filed his own appeal and appeared for himself at the hearing of the appeal. In summary, he argued the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Principals on appeal

[2] Appeals against sentence are brought under s 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and must be determined in accordance with s 250 of that Act. Specifically, this Court may only allow an appeal against sentence if it is satisfied there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that, in the event, a different sentence should be imposed.1

[3] If the sentence under appeal may be properly justified, having regard to the relevant sentencing principles, it is not the place of this Court to intervene and
substitute its own views for those of the sentencing Judge. It is only if the sentence

1 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 250(2) and 250(3).

PARTRIDGE v POLICE [2017] NZHC 106 [9 February 2017]

is “manifestly excessive” that the Court should interfere with the exercise of the

Judge’s discretion. As Toogood J said in Larkin v Ministry of Development:2

[26] The High Court will not intervene where the sentence is within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles. Whether a sentence is manifestly excessive is to be examined in terms of the sentence given, rather than the process by which the sentence is reached.

[4] The focus on most appeals is thus on the end sentence. In Tutakangahau v R, the Court of Appeal held that:3

… the focus is on the sentence imposed rather than the process by which the sentence is reached. That encapsulation of the position will no doubt represent the position in the vast majority of cases.

The District Court decision

[5] Mr Partridge had earlier pleaded guilty to certain charges. The Judge gave a sentence indication on the morning of 2 December 2016 of no more than 24 months’ imprisonment. Mr Partridge pleaded guilty on the afternoon of the same day and was sentenced in a manner consistent with the sentencing indication.

[6] It is apparent the Judge adopted a global starting point for all offending of 36 months. In her sentencing indication, the Judge said a 30 per cent discount would be appropriate in recognition of the guilty pleas and some other matters in Mr Partridge’s history, and there could be some further rounding-up in his favour to get the end sentence close to two years. The Judge made it clear that home detention would not be appropriate. When she actually imposed sentence, the Judge decided that, having regard to the totality principle,…

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 Partridge v Police

Details

AGLC: Partridge v Police [2017] NZHC 106
Case: [2017] NZHC 106
Decision Date: 9 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Mr. Partridge appealed against his 23-month imprisonment sentence, imposed by a District Court Judge on 2 December 2016. He argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Invercargill Registry. The legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, such that the High Court should intervene and substitute its own views for those of the sentencing Judge. The Court noted that the focus on most appeals is on the end sentence and that the Court will not intervene where the sentence is within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles.

The Court found that the District Court Judge had adopted a global starting point for all the offending of 36 months and had applied a 30 per cent discount in recognition of the guilty pleas and some other matters in Mr. Partridge’s history, resulting in a sentence of 23 months. The Judge had considered the circumstances of the various charges and the appellant’s previous convictions. The Court held that the sentence of 23 months was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal against sentence.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed. Mr. Partridge was to serve the 23-month imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Court, with credit for time already served.

Orders