Pritchard v The Queen

Case [2021] NZHC 1562


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-404-000135

[2021] NZHC 1562

BETWEEN

JADE PRITCHARD

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 14 June 2021

Counsel:

CA Oxnam for Appellant HT Reid for Respondent

Judgment:

29 June 2021


JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J


This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 10 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland.

Public Defence Service, Auckland.

PRITCHARD v R [2021] NZHC 1562 [29 June 2021]

The appeal

[1]    Jade Pritchard robbed three banks. He pleaded guilty shortly before trial.1 Judge E M Aitken sentenced Mr Pritchard to a 27-month term of imprisonment.2     Mr Pritchard appeals. He contends the sentence is manifestly excessive. The Crown contends Mr Pritchard is fortunate the sentence was not more severe.

Background

[2]The offending occurred between 22 June and 13 July 2018.

[3]    At 12.30 pm on 22 June 2018, Mr Pritchard approached the counter of the Kiwibank Post Shop in Glenmall, Glen Eden. Mr Pritchard gave a note to the teller. The note demanded all the money from the till, said he had a gun and a grenade, and that if the teller did not comply within 30 seconds, he would kill everyone in the bank. The teller gave Mr Pritchard approximately $1,000 in cash. Mr Pritchard then ran from the bank.

[4]    At 2 pm on 1 July 2018, Mr Pritchard approached the counter of the ANZ bank in the West City shopping centre, Henderson. He gave a note to the teller like that used in the first robbery.3 Mr Pritchard lifted his jacket to show the butt of a pistol. The teller gave Mr Pritchard approximately $1,000 in cash. Mr Pritchard also ran from this bank.

[5]    At 3.10 pm on 13 July 2018, Mr Pritchard approached the counter of the BNZ bank in Universal Drive, Henderson. Mr Pritchard gave a note to the teller, who unlike the previous tellers, did not read it. Mr Pritchard lifted his jacket to show a black pistol. He told the teller to read the note, who did. He then gave Mr Pritchard approximately $13,000. Mr Pritchard fled.

[6]    On 14 July 2018, Mr Pritchard bought a used white BMW, in part with the proceeds of the offending.


1      To two offences of aggravated robbery, and one of robbery. Aggravated robbery is punishable by a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment; robbery, 10 years’ imprisonment.

2      R v Pritchard [2021] NZDC 3396.

3      The summary of facts implies this note did not refer to a grenade.

[7]    Mr Pritchard was charged almost immediately: 16 July 2018. He pleaded guilty 11 September 2020, three days before his trial was to begin.

[8]    Mr Pritchard acted alone throughout. Somewhat unusually, he made no attempt to conceal his identity.

Sentencing

[9]    The offence of aggravated robbery is governed by the Court of Appeal’s judgment in R v Mako.4 Mr Pritchard’s offending did not cleanly fit the judgment, something the Judge…

Continue reading Pritchard v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pritchard v The Queen [2021] NZHC 1562
Case
[2021] NZHC 1562
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jade Pritchard appeals against the sentence imposed by Judge E M Aitken, contending it is manifestly excessive. Mr Pritchard pleaded guilty to three counts of bank robbery, two of which were aggravated by the presence of a firearm. Judge Aitken sentenced him to 27 months' imprisonment and ordered reparation of $9,000. Ms Oxnam, counsel for Mr Pritchard, contends the discount for mitigating factors should have been greater. She also contends the discount for restrictive bail conditions should have been greater. Ms Oxnam contends home detention should have been imposed. The Crown contends the sentence was lenient. The court held that the sentence was appropriate given the premeditated nature of the crimes, the use of a firearm, and the fact that Mr Pritchard had no prior criminal record. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.