Peters v R - [2014] NZHC 1158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-393 [2014] NZHC 1158

BETWEEN
RICHARD PETERS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 19 May 2014

Appearances:

I M Stewart and S S Pohiva for Appellant
B Thompson for Respondent

Judgment:

28 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF COOPER J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Cooper on
28 May 2014 at 4.30 p.m., pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service, Manukau City
Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitors, Auckland

PETERS v R [2014] NZHC 1158 [28 May 2014]

[1] On 22 November 2013 the appellant, Mr Peters, was sentenced by Judge Moses in the District Court at Papakura to an effective term of four years six months’ imprisonment on 19 counts of burglary of residential premises, and one of attempted burglary. Under s 231(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 each offence carried a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment. He now appeals against his sentence claiming that it was manifestly excessive.

[2] In addition, a minimum period of imprisonment was imposed of three years. The appellant contends that a minimum term of that length, which was the maximum able to be imposed under s 86(4) of the Sentencing Act 2002, was not necessary.

The offending

[3] The offending occurred between 12 March and 17 April 2013. On at least 19 occasions, the appellant gained entry to residential dwellings, predominantly in Papakura. The first charge related to a burglary of a residential house on
6 November 2012. The appellant’s fingerprints were left on a ranch slider at the house, leading to his arrest. He was charged on 21 February 2012 and released on bail.

[4] On 18 April the police were alerted to Mr Peter’s presence at an address in Papakura. They found him hiding in the roof of the house. He then agreed to give assistance to the police, accompanying them to point out a number of addresses where he had committed burglaries. The Judge recorded that he gave a detailed description of how he had broken in and of the items taken. It transpired that the appellant had committed 17 further burglaries of residential homes, and one attempted burglary, in the period of approximately two months between 18 February and 17 April 2013. Of those, 16 were committed while the appellant was on bail for the burglary that he committed in November 2012. The attempted burglary was in the same category.

[5] He was initially remanded in custody before being granted electronically monitored bail on 19 July 2013. On 27 July 2013, his conditions of bail were relaxed on compassionate grounds to enable him to visit a sick child in hospital. On
2 August 2013 the appellant committed a further burglary.

[6] He entered guilty pleas to all the charges on 26 September 2013.

The sentence imposed in the District Court

[7] The Judge noted that Mr Peters had stolen approximately $200,000 worth of property. He considered that the relevant aggravating factors included:

unlawful…

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 Peters v R

Details

AGLC: Peters v R [2014] NZHC 1158
Case: [2014] NZHC 1158
Decision Date: 28 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Peters v R involved Richard Peters, who appealed his sentence for 19 counts of residential burglary and one count of attempted burglary. The appellant argued that the four-year six-month imprisonment sentence was manifestly excessive and that the minimum term of three years was not necessary. The District Court Judge had imposed the sentence, taking into account the appellant's previous convictions, the circumstances of the offences, and the appellant's assistance to the police.

The legal issues in the case revolved around whether the starting point and uplift for the appellant's previous convictions were appropriate, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the minimum term of imprisonment was justified. The Court had to examine the proportionality of the sentence, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors. The Court also had to consider whether the minimum term was necessary to hold the appellant accountable, denounce his conduct, deter others, and protect the community.

Justice Cooper dismissed the appeal, holding that the four-year starting point and the uplift for previous convictions were appropriate. The Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the allowance for mitigating factors, including the guilty pleas and assistance to the police, was justified. The imposition of a minimum term of three years was also considered appropriate, given the appellant's previous history of burglary offending.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders