Price v Police - [2019] NZHC 2129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2019-443-22

[2019] NZHC 2129

BETWEEN
LEIGH BRYAN PRICE

Appellant

AND

THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 20 August 2019

Appearances:

J M Woodcock for Appellant J E Bourke for Respondent

Judgment:

20 August 2019

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

Background1

[1] Mr Price was sentenced to 10 months’ home detention in the District Court on 5 July 2019.2 He had earlier entered pleas of guilty on the following four charges:

(a)Two charges of possession of a cannabis plant;3

(b)One charge of presenting an imitation firearm;4 and

(c)One charge of possessing an imitation firearm while committing the offence of threatening grievous bodily harm.5

1      This decision was delivered orally on 20 August 2019. The written form has been edited and footnoted before distribution.
2      R v Price [2019] NZDC 13061.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 7(1)(a) and 7(2); maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or $500 fine.
4      Arms Act 1983, s52(2); maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine of $1,000.
5      Section 54(2); maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

PRICE v THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2129 [20 August 2019]

[2] Mr Price appeals his sentence on the grounds the sentence was manifestly excessive as the Judge erred by adopting a starting point that was too high.

Background

[3] The four charges against Mr Price arose from two separate incidents. The first charges of presenting an imitation firearm and possessing a cannabis plant arose on 16 January 2019. The second group of charges for possessing an imitation firearm while threatening grievous bodily harm and possessing a cannabis plant arose on 24 March 2019.

16 January 2019

[4] In relation to the events on 16 January 2019, in the early afternoon Mr Price was at home when the victim called in at his address to confront him about selling cannabis to children in the area. Mr Price came outside holding a “glock” style pistol in his right hand. He pointed it in the air and fired it twice. The victim was terrified and fled from the address as she feared for her life. She called the police who located Mr Price and searched his address. They discovered two race starter pistols with blank cartridge cases and 76 grams of cannabis. In an explanation for his offending, he said the cannabis was his for personal use and that he had not seen any “lady”.

24 March 2019

[5] On 24 March 2019 Mr Price became involved at a street argument in New Plymouth. He had parked his car. The victim parked his car behind Mr Price’s car and got out. When the victim began to walk away, Mr Price approached him. He yelled at the victim, then returned to his car to reach for his imitation pistol. He then pointed it at the victim before firing it three times in the victim’s direction. The victim tried to get away and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Price v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NZHC 2129
Decision Date: 20 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leigh Bryan Price appeals his sentence of 10 months' home detention, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand and determined by Grice J. Mr Price had earlier pleaded guilty to four charges, including possession of cannabis plants, presenting an imitation firearm, and possessing an imitation firearm while committing the offence of threatening grievous bodily harm. The appeal was based on the contention that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive because the Judge had erred in adopting a starting point that was too high.

The court examined whether the Judge had erred in determining the starting point for the sentence. The maximum penalties for the charges ranged from three months' imprisonment for possession of a cannabis plant to five years' imprisonment for possessing an imitation firearm while threatening grievous bodily harm. The Judge had adopted a starting point of 12 months' imprisonment for each of the two sets of charges, resulting in a cumulative starting point of two years' imprisonment. The court considered whether this starting point was appropriate given the nature of the offences and the offender's criminal history.

The court concluded that the starting point of 24 months' imprisonment was too high. The lead offence of possessing an imitation firearm while threatening grievous bodily harm had a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, but the court found that a starting point of 14 months' imprisonment was more appropriate. The court further considered the totality of the offending, the offender's criminal history, and the fact that the offences occurred while the offender was on bail. The court also noted the offender's guilty plea and personal circumstances, which warranted a discount of 7 months' imprisonment. The court determined that the appropriate sentence was 14 months' imprisonment, which when converted to home detention, resulted in a sentence of seven months' home detention.

The court quashed the original sentence and substituted it with a sentence of seven months' home detention on the lead charge and one month's home detention on each of the other charges, all to be served concurrently. The destruction orders in the District Court decision were confirmed. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was substituted as per the court's determination.

Orders