R v Anglem - [2009] NZCA 358

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA283/2009
[2009] NZCA 358
THE QUEEN
v
PIERRE REWI ANGLEM
Hearing:13 August 2009

Court:Baragwanath, Randerson and Panckhurst JJ
Counsel:W N Dollimore for Appellant

C R Walker for Crown

Judgment:13 August 2009
Reasons:20 August 2009

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed. The previous sentences of three and a half years imprisonment upon each of the burglary charges are quashed.
BCumulative terms of two and a half years imprisonment are substituted.
CAs a result the MPI is adjusted from three and a half years to two and a half years imprisonment.

____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Panckhurst J)
INTRODUCTION
[1] The appellant was sentenced to an effective term of seven years imprisonment, with a three and a half year minimum period of imprisonment (MPI), in relation to offences of burglary, theft, receiving, aggravated assault, dangerous driving, resisting arrest and possession of a methamphetamine pipe. The offending spree fell into two parts separated by a few months when the appellant was in prison on other matters. At sentencing, Judge Wolff imposed three and a half year terms on each of two offences of burglary, which were committed before and after the intervening prison term. The accumulation of these terms produced the end sentence.
[2] The appeal was presented by Mr Dollimore with reference to two main grounds:
(a)that the starting point adopted for each of the offences of burglary was too high, and
(b)that no allowance, or at least no discernible allowance, was made for guilty pleas which were entered in relation to all charges.

The offending
[3]       The first offence in time was committed on 20 December 2007. The appellant broke and entered commercial premises from which he took electronic items (including ipods and laptop computers) to a value of $43,000. In gaining entry damage was caused to the premises occasioning a further loss of about $1,900.
[4]       Before he was apprehended in relation to the burglary, the appellant was sentenced to four months imprisonment on 3 March 2008 in relation to two drug offences. Following his release the appellant went on a spree of offending.
[5]       This can best be summarised in tabulated form:
Date  Offence  Details
26 April 2008            Theft   Food to a value of
$50 from a supermarket

27 April 2008            Theft/aggravated assault     A DVD player valued
  at $150 from a
  supermarket/assault
  upon an employee who
  endeavoured to intervene
30 April 2008            Theft  3 cellphones to a value of
(2.40 pm)  $1,000 from an electrical
  store
30 April 2008            Theft  Car stereo unit valued at
(2.45 pm)  $149 from the same store
30 April 2008            Theft  An ipod valued at $199
(4.40 pm)  from the same store
5 June 2008               Theft  Tools to a value of $29
  from hardware store
5 June 2008               Theft  Laptop computer valued
  at $1,200 from an
  electrical store
24 June 2008             Theft  Petrol to a value of $129
  from a service station
25 June  Theft  Petrol to a value of $55
  from…

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 Anglem

Details

AGLC: R v Anglem [2009] NZCA 358
Case: [2009] NZCA 358
Decision Date: 13 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Anglem, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand reviewed the sentence given to the appellant, Pierre Rewi Anglem, for a series of offences including burglary, theft, and aggravated assault. The appellant was originally sentenced to an effective term of seven years imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of three and a half years on each of two burglary charges. The appeal challenged the starting point for these burglary sentences and the lack of allowance for the appellant's guilty pleas. The court found that the starting point for the burglary sentences was too high and that insufficient credit was given for the guilty pleas. The Court of Appeal re-evaluated the sentence and determined that a sentence of two and a half years was appropriate for each burglary charge, resulting in a cumulative term of five years. This new effective sentence led to the adjustment of the MPI from three and a half years to two and a half years imprisonment. Consequently, the Court quashed the previous sentences and substituted the new terms.

Orders