R v Christian

Case [2016] NZHC 3051


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2015-063-731 [2016] NZHC 3051

THE QUEEN

v

JORDAN ALEXANDER CHRISTIAN

Charge:

Plea:

Theft

Not Guilty

Counsel:

C H Macklin for Crown
M A Simpkins for Defendant

Sentenced:

14 December 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors:

Gordon Pilditch (Rotorua) for Crown

Lance Lawson (Rotorua) for Defendant

R v CHRISTIAN [2016] NZHC 3051 [14 December 2016]

[1]      Mr Christian, you are appearing today for sentencing on the conviction of theft of the Isuzu Elf motor vehicle.

[2]      As you are well aware, the jury found you guilty of that charge and I entered a conviction.  Subsequently, I wondered whether that was an appropriate conviction because you were charged as a s 66(1) party and it was not alleged that you had yourself physically stolen the Isuzu Elf.  What was alleged was that Mr McDonnell had been in possession of the motor vehicle and that you were a party to its theft by Mr McDonnell, or by one of the others in the group.  The principal evidence of that was that you were found in possession of the Elf.

[3]      Of course, the jury acquitted all of your other co-defendants on the charge of theft of the Elf and so my view is that the conviction that should have been entered was on a charge of receiving the Elf knowing it to be stolen property.

[4]      I do not have the power to change the conviction.  The jury found you guilty of the charge, I entered a conviction, and now only the Court of Appeal can deal with the situation, if that is what you decide to do.  What I will do, though, is sentence you on the basis that you received the Elf.

[5]      My view is that, given the year-long period that you were on restrictive bail conditions and given the fact that you were remanded in custody for nearly seven weeks over the course of the trial, it would not be in the interests of justice to add any further penalty. Accordingly, I discharge you now without further penalty so that

in legal terms you have been convicted and discharged. You may stand down.

Brewer J

Details
AGLC
R v Christian [2016] NZHC 3051
Case
[2016] NZHC 3051
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, the defendant Jordan Alexander Christian was convicted of theft of an Isuzu Elf motor vehicle and sentenced on 14 December 2016. Christian was charged as a party to the theft under section 66(1), but the jury acquitted his co-defendants on the charge of theft, finding only Christian guilty. The primary evidence against Christian was that he was found in possession of the stolen vehicle. The judge considered that the appropriate conviction should have been for receiving the vehicle knowing it to be stolen, rather than theft, but noted that only the Court of Appeal had the power to rectify this.

The legal issues in this case centred around the appropriate charge for which Christian should be convicted and whether the conviction of theft was accurate given the jury's acquittal of his co-defendants. The judge acknowledged that the jury's decision to convict Christian of theft, while acquitting his co-defendants, was a significant factor in the proceedings. Despite the error in the conviction, the judge concluded that the Court of Appeal was the only body with the authority to alter the conviction. Instead, the judge proceeded to sentence Christian based on the understanding that he was guilty of receiving the vehicle knowing it to be stolen.

Brewer J decided to discharge Christian without further penalty, considering the extensive period he had already spent on restrictive bail conditions and in custody during the trial. The judge reasoned that adding any further penalty would not serve the interests of justice. Consequently, Christian was legally convicted and discharged, effectively ending the case without imposing additional punishment.

The final orders of the court were to discharge Christian without any further penalty, thereby concluding the sentencing process in this matter.

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.