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 DefendantSentenced:
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
- AGLC
- R v Christian [2016] NZHC 3051
- Case
- [2016] NZHC 3051
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.