Prattley v Police - [2014] NZHC 486

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2014-409-14 [2014] NZHC 486

NEIL RAYMOND PRATTLEY Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 13 March 2014

Appearances: D J Matthews for Appellant
K B Bell for Respondent

Judgment: 18 March 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] The appellant appeals his sentence of 2 years and 2 months imprisonment imposed by Judge Garland on two charges of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, theft and using a document, breach of release conditions and breach of Police bail.

[2] The background to these offences commences when the appellant was released from prison on 16 January 2013. He was subject to release conditions, including the requirement to report to his probation officer as directed. On 21 May
2013 the appellant breached his release conditions and subsequently in June was

convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon.

PRATTLEY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 486 [18 March 2014]

[3] On 10 September the appellant was outside the Pioneer Stadium in Christchurch when he walked into the car park area and approached a parked Mazda vehicle. Noticing that the vehicle was insecure, he entered and located a key in the ashtray. The vehicle, valued at $1,000, was driven off by the appellant. He was apprehended by the Police several hours later.

[4] The appellant was charged and released on Police bail but failed to appear in the Christchurch District Court on 24 September. Also on that day he failed to report to his probation officer, giving rise to the breach of release conditions and breach of bail charges.

[5] While still at large, the appellant on 29 September was at a softball tournament. Whilst alone in the umpires’ changing room, he searched through the bags of his fellow umpires and located a wallet from which he removed $40. He also took a BNZ MasterCard which he subsequently used to purchase $103 worth of alcohol.

[6] On 9 October 2013 the appellant gained entry to a motor vehicle parked on Park Terrace, using a spare key to work the lock. The appellant drove the vehicle away. The vehicle worth $1,000 was located a couple of days later undamaged.

[7] In respect of the two charges of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle and the fraudulent use of a document the appellant was sentenced to 2 years and 2 months imprisonment. On the charge of theft, he was sentenced to 2 months imprisonment, and on the charge of breaching his release conditions to 3 months imprisonment, on the charge of breaching Police bail he was convicted and discharged.

[8] In approaching the sentencing exercise it is apparent that the learned District Court Judge placed emphasis on the need to hold the appellant accountable for his actions, deterrence and in particular community protection as the overriding sentencing considerations. This was unsurprising having regard to the appellant’s extensive previous history of offending. At 30 years of age, the appellant has since
1992 been sentenced to…

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 Prattley v Police

Details

AGLC: Prattley v Police [2014] NZHC 486
Case: [2014] NZHC 486
Decision Date: 18 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Neil Raymond Prattley, appealed against his sentence of 2 years and 2 months imprisonment imposed by Judge Garland on charges of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, theft, using a document, breach of release conditions and breach of Police bail. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand Christchurch Registry. Prattley's counsel, D J Matthews, argued that the sentencing Judge did not apply orthodox sentencing methodology and that the starting point for the sentence was incorrect. Counsel also argued that insufficient credit was given for the appellant's remorse, time spent on electronically monitored bail, and the early guilty pleas. The respondent, New Zealand Police, was represented by K B Bell.

The court found that while the sentencing Judge did not strictly follow the orthodox sentencing methodology, this did not result in an error in the sentence imposed. The court noted that there were different routes to calculate a starting point for the sentence and that the sentencing Judge's starting point was not excessive. The court also found that insufficient credit was given for the appellant's time spent on electronically monitored bail, but that this did not warrant a change in the sentence. Finally, the court found that the credit given for the early guilty pleas was within the range available to the sentencing Judge.

The court concluded that the sentence of 2 years and 2 months imprisonment was appropriate and dismissed the appeal, except to the extent that the sentence was reduced to 2 years to give credit for the 2 months spent on electronically monitored bail.

Orders