Pollard v Police - [2019] NZHC 2611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2019-425-000022

[2019] NZHC 2611

BETWEEN
GEORGE CRAIG POLLARD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 14 October 2019

Appearances:

J K Fraser for Appellant

R W Donnelly for Respondent

Judgment:

14 October 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

POLLARD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2611 [14 October 2019]

Introduction

[1] Following his guilty plea, the appellant, Mr Pollard was convicted and sentenced in the District Court at Invercargill on one charge of doing a threatening act, in contravention of section 308(a) of the Crimes Act 1961. He now appeals the sentence of 12 months’ supervision, 100 hours’ community work and the order to pay
$800 emotional harm reparation imposed on him by Judge Brandts-Giesen on 21 May 2019.

[2] Section 308(a) provides that everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months who, with intent to intimidate or annoy any person, breaks or damages or threatens to break or damage any dwelling house.

Facts

[3] Mr Pollard and the victim here were in a de facto relationship for approximately 20 years. They have four children together.

[4] The offending occurred in the context of that domestic relationship. In breach of a police safety order, the appellant had gone to the victim’s home address and punched several holes in the internal walls of the house. The victim had awoken to the appellant standing over the bed.

[5] Specifically, at 1.40 am on 8 January 2019, the police were called to the victim’s address as the victim wanted Mr Pollard who was there removed. The police came and did note there were several holes in the internal walls of the property. The appellant was served with a three-day police safety order.

[6] Later, the victim rang police telling them that Mr Pollard had returned to the address, entered and gone into her bedroom, where she woke to find him standing over the bed. He punched the walls several times again, making more holes.

District Court sentencing decision

[7] Turning now to the District Court sentencing decision, Judge Brandts-Giesen sentenced the appellant to 12 months’ supervision on the conditions set out in the pre- sentence report, namely that:

(a)The appellant was to undertake and complete the non-violence programme and abide by the rules of the programme to the satisfaction of a probation officer; and

(b)The appellant was also to attend and complete an appropriate alcohol and drug programme to the satisfaction of a probation officer. The specific details were to be determined by the probation officer.

[8] The Judge also sentenced the appellant to 100 hours of community work, and required an emotional harm payment of $800 to be made to the complainant.

Principles on appeal

[9] I turn now to the principles on appeal. Appeals against sentence are allowed as of right by s 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and must be determined in accordance with s 250 of…

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 Pollard v Police

Details

AGLC: Pollard v Police [2019] NZHC 2611
Case: [2019] NZHC 2611
Decision Date: 14 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Invercargill Registry, heard the appeal of George Craig Pollard against his conviction and sentence imposed by the District Court. Pollard was convicted of doing a threatening act in contravention of section 308(a) of the Crimes Act 1961, and was sentenced to 12 months’ supervision, 100 hours’ community work, and an order to pay $800 emotional harm reparation. The appeal focused on the claim that the sentence was "manifestly excessive".

The legal issues the court had to determine were whether the District Court erred in imposing the sentence and whether a different sentence should be imposed. The court considered the sentencing principles and whether the sentence was within the proper range justified by these principles. The appellant argued that the sentence was at the higher end of the available options and should have been less severe.

The court reasoned that it was not in a position to revisit the facts on which the appellant had pleaded guilty. It found that the sentence was one at the lower end of the spectrum of sentences for domestic violence offences and was supported by the Department of Corrections. The sentence aimed to address the appellant's rehabilitative needs and prevent reoffending, which was appropriate given his history of alcohol-related offences. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the District Court was upheld.

Orders