Legal Research
Cases
R v Aldridge

R v Aldridge

Case [2009] NZCA 550 24 November 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA496/2009
[2009] NZCA 550
THE QUEEN
v
PATRICIA ANN ALDRIDGE
Hearing:3 November 2009

Court:William Young P, Chisholm and Priestley JJ
Counsel:A F Rickard-Simms for Appellant

K A L Bicknell for Crown

Judgment:24 November 2009 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A           Application for an extension of time to appeal granted.
B           The appeal is allowed.
C           The sentences of four years imprisonment are quashed.
D           Sentences of three years four months imprisonment are substituted.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Priestley J)
Application for leave for extension of time
[1]        The appellant filed an affidavit detailing the obstacles she had encountered obtaining legal advice and assistance in the wake of her being sentenced to imprisonment and being returned to a penal institution in June 2008.
[2]        Were the substantive appeal to be successful the Crown indicated it would not oppose an extension application. There was no prejudice caused by the delay, in this case, of approximately 13 months. The necessary extension is accordingly granted.
The appeal
[3]        Judge M R Radford sentenced the appellant to two concurrent terms of four years imprisonment on burglary charges in the Wanganui District Court on 18 June 2008. The appellant had entered early guilty pleas.
[4]        This appeal challenges the sentences on the grounds of being manifestly excessive.
Background
[5]        The appellant can fairly be described as a recidivist burglar. Now aged 44, she has an appalling criminal record and has been imprisoned on many occasions. The Judge noted 110 previous dishonesty convictions.
[6]        In February 2005 the appellant had been sentenced to an effective four year sentence. That sentence flowed from six convictions for burglary and two for theft. Four months later a cumulative six month sentence was imposed for escaping from custody.
[7]        Although the combined sentences would not have expired until August 2009 the appellant was released on home detention in October 2007. The home detention regime was to operate until the end of April 2008.
[8]        Three days before her home detention obligation expired, whilst on approved leave, the appellant went into the designated staff area of a bar in Wanganui. She took two bags from a staff room and left the bar with them. The bags contained cash and contents valued at approximately $1,550.
[9]        It was subsequently discovered that approximately three weeks prior to the bar burglary, again whilst on leave from home detention, the appellant had forced entry through a bedroom window into a residence in Wanganui. She had rummaged through bedrooms in the house and had left with cash, watches, miscellaneous jewellery items, and a cell phone.
[10]      The burglary charge relating to the bar was laid in May. The appellant pleaded guilty just over a fortnight later on the fourth call. The house burglary charge was laid on 18^th June 2008, the date to which the appellant had been remanded for sentence. She pleaded guilty immediately.
Sentence
[11]      The judge was thus faced with…

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 R v Aldridge

Details

AGLC: R v Aldridge [2009] NZCA 550
Case: [2009] NZCA 550
Decision Date: 24 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Patricia Ann Aldridge was the appellant in the case of R v Aldridge, heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Aldridge had been sentenced to two concurrent terms of four years imprisonment on burglary charges in the Wanganui District Court. She appealed the sentences on the grounds of being manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by William Young P, Chisholm, and Priestley JJ. The Crown was represented by K A L Bicknell, and the appellant by A F Rickard-Simms.

The primary legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the sentences were manifestly excessive and whether the appellant's guilty pleas warranted a greater reduction. The appellant argued that the start point was too high and that the reduction for her guilty pleas was too low, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. The Crown conceded that the mitigating credit given for the guilty pleas was too low. The court examined the appropriate range of sentences relevant to recidivist burglars and whether the start point and reduction for the guilty pleas were justified.

The court found that the five-year start point was appropriate but that the one-year reduction for the guilty pleas was too low. The court referred to its judgment in R v Hessell [2009] NZCA 450, which mandated a full early plea discount of 33 per cent. The court concluded that a one-third discount in respect of both guilty pleas would have been appropriate, resulting in a sentence of three years and four months imprisonment. The four-year end sentence imposed by the Judge was manifestly excessive to the extent of eight months.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentences of four years imprisonment were quashed. Sentences of three years and four months imprisonment were substituted. The court granted the appellant an extension of time to appeal.

Orders