Priday v Police - [2023] NZHC 3107

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2023-454-18

[2023] NZHC 3107

BETWEEN
PAUL PRIDAY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 18 October 2023

Appearances:

J A Younger for the Appellant G M Stone for the Respondent

Judgment:

3 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Solicitors
J A Younger, Palmerston North
BVA The Practice, Palmerston North

PRIDAY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 3107 [3 November 2023]

What happened?

[1] Mr Paul Priday, aged 48, and the complainant have had a 13-year on and off relationship. They have a child together. There have been 32 family harm incidents recorded between the two of them before January 2023. Family protection orders were issued against Mr Priday in favour of the complainant in 2012 and 2020.

[2] In the early hours of 1 January 2023, Mr Paul Priday returned to the tent he was sharing with the complainant, at a campground. He was intoxicated. The complainant decided to leave. Mr Priday got upset with her, grabbed her, and they struggled and fell onto a bed with Mr Priday on top of her. She screamed. He pinned her down. He punched her in the face and body and held his hand over her nose and mouth to stop her yelling. She sustained cuts and bruises to her face and swelling to her lower jaw. For this, Mr Priday has pleaded guilty to assault on a person in a family relationship and breach of a protection order.1 Afterwards, he told her he thought he should kill her this time. She managed to get out of the tent and away from Mr Priday.

[3] The next day the complainant ended her relationship with Mr Priday. The complainant received texts from Mr Priday and, on 6 January 2023, blocked his number. But he continued to contact her, in breach of the protection order:

(a)On 28 and 29 January 2023 he left voice messages for her, which included messages such as “[y]our fucken dead slut …” and “… [y]our dead mother fucker”. For this he has pleaded guilty to a second breach of a protection order.

(b)On 10 February 2023, he left two messages threatening to ‘get her’ and that she’s “fucken dead”. For this, he has pleaded guilty to a third breach of a protection order.

(c)On 12 February 2023, Mr Priday texted the complainant three times, calling her a slut and saying she will die. For this, he has pleaded guilty to a fourth breach of a protection order.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 194A; and Family Violence Act 2018, ss 9, 90(a) and 112(1)(a). Maximum penalties of two years’ imprisonment and three years’ imprisonment respectively.

(d)On 13 February 2023, Mr Priday went to the complainant’s home at
2.45 am and stood in her backyard. A couple of hours later he left a voice message saying, “you’re dead cunt and I mean it”. For this, he has pleaded guilty to a fifth breach…

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 Priday v Police

Details

AGLC: Priday v Police [2023] NZHC 3107
Case: [2023] NZHC 3107
Decision Date: 3 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Priday v Police, Mr Paul Priday appealed against his conviction and sentence. The appellant, Mr Priday, and the complainant had a tumultuous relationship with a history of family harm incidents, including assaults and breaches of family protection orders. On 1 January 2023, Mr Priday assaulted the complainant and subsequently made threats to kill her over the following weeks, in breach of a family protection order. Mr Priday pleaded guilty to assault, breaches of protection orders, and threatening to kill. In sentencing, the District Court Judge set a global starting point of three years' imprisonment, uplifted it by six months for previous offending, and discounted it by 45% for an early guilty plea and mitigating factors, resulting in a sentence of 25 and a half months' imprisonment. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive for several reasons, which the court addressed in turn.

The court found that the starting point of three years was within the appropriate range, given the seriousness of the assault and the threats to kill. The court noted that the starting point was justified by the nature of the assault and the frequency of the threats. The court also found that the judge did not double-count previous convictions in setting the starting point and applying the uplift. The court acknowledged an error in the sentencing remarks regarding offending on bail but found that it did not materially affect the outcome. The court concluded that the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the District Court's sentence, finding that the starting point, uplifts, and discounts were all within the range available to the Judge. The court found that the sentence was consistent with the totality of the offending and not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders