Pritchard v The King

[2023] NZHC 2886

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2023-485-046

[2023] NZHC 2886

BETWEEN

DANIEL JOHN PRITCHARD

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing:

12 October 2023

Appearances:

S J Gill for Respondent

H N Prasad for Respondent

Judgment:

16 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Appeal against sentence)

Introduction

[1]The appellant, Mr Daniel Pritchard, pleaded guilty to the following charges:

(a)twenty-seven charges of possession of objectionable material;1

(b)five charges of knowingly making or copying an objectionable publication;2

(c)one charge on doing an indecent act;3

1      Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993, s 131A(1) — maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment; or $50,000 fine.

2      Section 124(1) — maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

3      Crimes Act 1961, s 125(1) — maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.

PRITCHARD v R [2023] NZHC 2886 [16 October 2023]

(d)one charge of indecency with an animal;4 and

(e)one charge of resisting police.5

[2]        The appellant  received  a  sentence  indication  from  Judge  Tompkins  on  29 March 2023, which he accepted on 4 April 2023.  On  28  June  2023,  in  the Hutt Valley District Court, the appellant was sentenced by Judge Tompkins to two years and two months’ imprisonment.6

[3]        The appellant appeals against the sentence on the basis it is manifestly excessive. The appellant says the Judge gave insufficient credit for alcohol and drug issues, mental health issues and s 27 cultural factors.

Leave to appeal out of time

[4]        The appellant says he only received  the  transcribed  decision  of  the  District Court delivered on 28 June 2023 on 18 August 2023, so was therefore unable to file an appeal within the 28-day period. The notice of appeal is dated the same date, 18 August 2023. In the circumstances, I consider it is appropriate to grant leave to appeal the decision out of time.

The offending

[5]        The appellant does not dispute the summaries of facts adduced in this case. In brief, the charges are generally of sexual-related offending. On one occasion, the appellant enticed a dog to lick his anus and genital area while he masturbated and made video recordings of the activity. Police later identified on the appellant’s phone five publications that were deemed to be objectionable publications and three videos that depicted evidence of indecency with a dog. On another occasion, the appellant sat down on a bench in an often-busy public street, completely exposed his penis and testicles, and stroked his penis. He attempted to evade police but was unsuccessful. On another date, a number of pornographic electronic images and video files,

4      Section 144 — maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.

5      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 23(a) — maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment; or $2,000 fine.

6      Police v Pritchard [2023] NZDC 13477 at [10].

including a number related to young people and children, were located on the appellant’s phone. Due to the sheer quantity of files, only a small portion of the files were examined, 21 of which were deemed to be…