R v Anderson - [2018] NZHC 987

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THECRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2017-043-1229

[2018] NZHC 987

THE QUEEN

v

CARL VINCENT ANDERSON

Hearing: 8 May 2018

Counsel:

C E Clarke for Crown

N P Bourke for defendant

Sentence:

8 May 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOBSON J

[1] Mr Anderson, I have now recorded your acceptance of the sentence indication I gave, you have pleaded guilty and I enter a conviction to the charge. *I will not repeat the reasons for my sentence indication, and will annex the terms of it to these notes. The form annexed will be anonymised to take out the name of the complainant and your co-defendant.

[2] I sentence you to a term of six months’ home detention to be served at the [home detention] address, to commence on 15 May 2018. The commencement date is subject to application by either the Crown (if further time is required) or on your

R v ANDERSON [2018] NZHC 987 [8 May 2018]

behalf to vary it as soon as a reconfirmation of the suitability of that address for serving an electronically monitored sentence is confirmed. *I urge that priority be given to that assessment, so that it is available as soon as possible.

[3] The conditions that will apply are that on your release, you are to go directly there and to await the arrival of the Probation Officer or other personnel who will monitor your sentence. *In addition, I direct that the standard post-detention conditions in s 80O of the Sentencing Act 2002 are to apply until 15 May 2019. Given the desirability of resolving the sentencing whilst I am in New Plymouth, I have done so without a pre-sentence report, which you have reasonably indicated is not required, and also without an update to the appendix that is expected to reconfirm the suitability of the address. I reserve the prospect of adding additional conditions, should any be recommended when the updated appendix is provided.

[4] I should add that in a number of the cases I considered where a home detention sentence is substituted for a prison one for a conviction for perverting the course of justice, it is coupled with a sentence of community work. But the location of the address you are going to serve it at I consider renders that impracticable. And that is one factor I have taken into account in not reducing it month for month for the period that you have been on remand.

[5] I have a concern which is not reflected in the sentence about your ability to serve a sentence at that isolated address and I urge you very genuinely to make sure you do comply.

[6] I acknowledge that I have added to the terms of the sentencing as delivered, in the passages marked with an…

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 Anderson

Details

AGLC: R v Anderson [2018] NZHC 987
Case: [2018] NZHC 987
Decision Date: 8 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Carl Vincent Anderson, was charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, a charge he pleaded guilty to. The case was heard by the High Court of New Zealand, New Plymouth Registry, presided over by Justice Dobson. The primary legal issue was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant's involvement in an attempt to influence a complainant to withdraw her allegations against another individual, thereby interfering with the course of justice.

The court considered several factors in reaching its decision. It acknowledged that the defendant's actions, while serious, did not involve any threats or strong pressure on the complainant and there was no personal gain for the defendant. However, the court also noted the defendant's willingness to engage in the activities and his history of similar offenses, including a previous conviction for perverting the course of justice. The court evaluated the seriousness of the offense by comparing it to other cases involving similar conduct. Based on this evaluation, the court determined a starting point of 23 months' imprisonment. The defendant's guilty plea and his cooperation in expediting the proceedings were considered mitigating factors, resulting in a sentence of 16 months' imprisonment. Given the defendant's history and the mitigating factors, the court opted for a sentence of six months' home detention, subject to certain conditions, to be served at a specified address.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Anderson to a term of six months' home detention, with the sentence to commence on 15 May 2018, subject to the suitability of the address for serving an electronically monitored sentence being confirmed. The court also directed that the standard post-detention conditions apply until 15 May 2019. The court emphasized the importance of complying with the sentence and reserved the right to add additional conditions if necessary.

Orders