R v Dickson - [2023] NZHC 2732

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2021-070-001570

[2023] NZHC 2732

THE KING

v

JAMES BRADLEY DICKSON

Hearing: 29 September 2023

Appearances:

G Banuelos for the Crown M Jenkins for the Defendant

Judgment:

29 September 2023

ORAL JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application to cancel sentence of home detention]

Solicitors/counsel: Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua M Jenkins, Rotorua

R v DICKSON [2023] NZHC 2732 [29 September 2023]

[1] Mr Dickson, on 11 May 2023 you were sentenced to 11 months home detention after pleading guilty to a charge of importing cocaine.1

[2] Over the next three months you breached the sentence of home detention on several occasions by leaving your address without authorisation and failing to charge your electronic bracelet. In addition, you failed to keep an appointment at which a urine specimen was to be taken to ensure you were complying with a condition prohibiting you from consuming non-prescription drugs. On 4 September 2023, you pleaded guilty in the District Court to two charges of breaching the sentence of home detention in these ways. You have been remanded in custody by the District Court for sentence on those charges on 10 November 2023.

[3] The Department of Corrections has now applied for an order under s 80F(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act) cancelling the sentence of home detention and substituting a sentence of imprisonment in its place. Section 80F(1)(a) and (4) of the Act permit the court to cancel a sentence of home detention and impose another sentence in substitution for it where an offender has failed to comply with the conditions imposed as part of the sentence of home detention. The convictions entered in the District Court mean that you have failed to comply with the conditions to which the charges in that Court relate. Jurisdiction therefore exists to cancel the sentence of home detention and impose a sentence of imprisonment in its place.

[4] You and your partner have sworn affidavits in opposition to the application. You acknowledge that you breached the sentence of home detention by leaving your address without permission and you do not attempt to make excuses for doing so. You say you were dealing with anxiety and depression at that time. Your grandmother was also sick during this period and you say that on some occasions you went to visit her. On other occasions you say you went for a drive to clear your head. Sadly, your grandmother passed away whilst you have been in custody and you were not able to be with her then and you could not attend her tangi. You say this is something you will regret for the rest of your life.

1 R v Dickson [2023] NZHC 1124,

[5] You point out that you have never been in prison before and your remand in custody has brought home to you how important it is to adhere to your home detention conditions. You say you do…

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 Dickson

Details

AGLC: R v Dickson [2023] NZHC 2732
Case: [2023] NZHC 2732
Decision Date: 29 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Tauranga Registry, dealt with an application by the Department of Corrections to cancel a sentence of home detention and substitute a sentence of imprisonment for James Bradley Dickson. The application arose after Dickson had breached the terms of his home detention, imposed for importing cocaine, on several occasions by leaving his address without authorisation and failing to comply with other conditions. Dickson had pleaded guilty to two charges of breaching home detention and was due to be sentenced in the District Court.

The legal issues before the court were whether the breaches were sufficient to warrant the cancellation of the home detention sentence and substitution of a sentence of imprisonment. Section 80F(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act 2002 permits the court to cancel a sentence of home detention and impose another sentence where an offender fails to comply with the conditions of that sentence. The court needed to weigh the nature and extent of the breaches against Dickson's acknowledgment of his wrongdoing, his remorse, and his stated intention to comply with future conditions of home detention.

The court acknowledged the seriousness of Dickson's breaches, but also considered his affidavit, which detailed his mental health issues and the personal circumstances that led to his breaches. Dickson expressed regret for his actions, acknowledged the importance of adhering to the conditions of home detention, and pledged to engage with rehabilitative services to address his drug addiction and mental health issues. The judge was persuaded by Dickson's genuine remorse and his commitment to rehabilitation, deciding to give him one final opportunity to comply with the terms of his home detention. However, the judge made it clear that any further breaches would result in the sentence being cancelled and a sentence of imprisonment imposed.

The court dismissed the application to cancel the sentence of home detention, ordering that Dickson would resume serving his home detention sentence once he obtained bail on the charges to which he had pleaded guilty in the District Court. The judge warned Dickson that any further breaches would lead to the immediate imposition of a prison sentence.

Orders