Philpot v The Queen - [2015] NZCA 212

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA517/2014
[2015] NZCA 212

BETWEEN	CRAIG RICHARD PHILPOT Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	30 April 2015
Court:	French, Simon France and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	K H Cook for Appellant P K Feltham for Respondent
Judgment:	4 June 2015 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for an extension of time in which to bring an appeal against sentence is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Clifford J)

Introduction

The appellant, Craig Richard Philpot, pleaded guilty to two representative charges of sexual conduct with a young person under 16, two representative charges of meeting a young person following sexual grooming and one specific charge of driving with excess breath alcohol (his fifth conviction for drink driving). That offending all occurred in 2011.[1]
[1]There is some confusion as to whether all the sexual charges Mr Philpot faced were, indeed, representative. They were described as such by the sentencing Judge, and by the Crown. For Mr Philpot, Mr Cook referred to the second charge of “grooming” as being a specific charge. Little turns on that distinction for the purposes of this appeal, and we adopt the classification used by the Judge and by the Crown.
Mr Philpot was sentenced by Judge Crosbie in the Christchurch District Court on 22 June 2012 to six years and seven months’ imprisonment.[2] Mr Philpot now applies for an extension of time in which to bring an appeal against that sentence. Mr Philpot says there are good reasons why his appeal is out of time and that his sentence is manifestly excessive.

Facts

[2]R v Philpot DC Christchurch CRI-2010-009-11997, 22 June 2012.

Mr Philpot’s sexual offending involved two female victims under the age of 16, S and K.
Mr Philpot met S towards the end of 2010 through an intimate relationship he had formed with her mother, C. S was aged 13 at the time, Mr Philpot was 32.
On the afternoon of 28 January 2011, C asked Mr Philpot to look after S while C went to the doctors. C did not want to leave S at home alone. Over the next few hours, Mr Philpot drove S to different pubs around Christchurch. He took S inside, buying her lemonade and occasionally adding vodka to her drink whilst he drank beer.
In the late afternoon, C began texting both Mr Philpot and S to find out where they were, what they were doing and what time they would be back. Mr Philpot told S not to text her mother back, and S did not. C then began ringing both Mr Philpot’s and S’s mobile phones. She contacted her former partner, S’s father. Around about 10 pm that evening, S’s father also began ringing her phone. Mr Philpot told S to ignore the calls from both her parents.
Throughout this time and into the early…

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 Philpot v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Philpot v The Queen [2015] NZCA 212
Case: [2015] NZCA 212
Decision Date: 4 June 2015 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Craig Richard Philpot, the appellant, sought an extension of time to bring an appeal against his sentence. Philpot had pleaded guilty to multiple charges including sexual conduct with a young person under 16, meeting a young person following sexual grooming, and driving with excess breath alcohol. The Christchurch District Court sentenced Philpot to six years and seven months' imprisonment. The appeal court assessed Philpot's reasons for the delayed appeal, which included difficulties in prison affecting his communication with his lawyer and advice from fellow inmates that an appeal could negatively impact his parole chances. The court found these reasons insufficient to warrant an extension of time. The appeal court then examined the merits of Philpot's appeal, considering whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court concluded that while the sentence was stern, it was not manifestly excessive and that interfering with the original sentence would amount to unnecessary tinkering.

The Court of Appeal declined Philpot's application for an extension of time to bring his appeal against sentence.

Orders