Legal Research
Cases
Patterson v R

Patterson v R

Case [2017] NZCA 66 20 March 2017

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA57/2017
[2017] NZCA 66

BETWEEN	WAYNE THOMAS PATTERSON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	7 March 2017
Court:	Wild, Miller and Cooper JJ
Counsel:	D A Ewen and SWO Campbell for Appellant K Laurenson and F G Biggs for Respondent
Judgment:	20 March 2017 at 2.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted on the issue of whether a search power can be implied into the Sentencing Act 2002. Leave to appeal is otherwise declined.
BThe appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

Introduction

Mr Patterson seeks leave to bring a second appeal against release conditions requiring that he (a) submit any electronic devices to a probation officer upon request for the purpose of monitoring compliance with release conditions and (b) provide details of all bank accounts and money held by him at all times. He says that s 93 of the Sentencing Act 2002, under which the conditions were ultimately imposed, does not permit what amounts to a warrantless search, and that in any event the conditions are neither reasonable nor proportionate.

The release conditions, and how they came about

Mr Patterson has a long history of fraud in New Zealand, Australia and the United States. In 2008 he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for beneficiary fraud on an industrial scale; he created 123 false identities and defrauded the state of $3,400,000. He served the full sentence, with an additional nine months for escape and attempted escape. At a parole hearing on 5 June 2013 he tendered forged letters of support from his brother and an employer. He was denied parole and the documents were referred for investigation.
The forgeries resulted in Mr Patterson facing charges of (among other things) attempting to pervert the course of justice. He pleaded guilty and on 14 August 2015 was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. That carried with it the standard release conditions authorised by s 93(2)(a) of the Sentencing Act, but no special conditions were sought or imposed. The standard conditions are set out in the Parole Act 2002:[1]
[1]Parole Act 2002, s 14(1).
(a)the offender must report in person to a probation officer in the probation area in which the offender resides as soon as practicable, and not later than 72 hours, after release:
(b)the offender must report to a probation officer as and when required to do so by a probation officer, and must notify the probation officer of his or her residential address and the nature and place of his or her employment when asked to do so:
(c)the offender must not move to a new residential address in another probation area without the prior written consent of the probation officer:
(d)if consent is given under paragraph (c), the offender must report in person to a probation officer in the new probation area in which the offender is to reside as soon as practicable, and not later than 72 hours, after the…

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 Patterson v R

Details

AGLC: Patterson v R [2017] NZCA 66
Case: [2017] NZCA 66
Decision Date: 20 March 2017 at 2.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Patterson v R, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an appeal against the release conditions imposed on Mr Wayne Thomas Patterson, who had a history of fraud. The primary issue was whether certain conditions, specifically requiring Mr Patterson to submit his electronic devices to a probation officer upon request and provide details of all bank accounts and money held by him, were authorized under the Sentencing Act 2002 and if they were reasonable and proportionate. The court's reasoning focused on the authority of the Sentencing Act to permit search powers and the proportionality of the conditions imposed. The Court concluded that the Sentencing Act did authorize a search power under certain conditions, but these particular conditions were not proportionate in Mr Patterson's case, given his high risk of reoffending. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal on the proportionality issue was refused. The final orders were that leave to appeal was granted on the issue of whether a search power can be implied into the Sentencing Act 2002, but leave to appeal was otherwise declined, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders