R v Drewett

The appellant, Gordon James Drewett, was convicted of aggravated burglary, assault with intent to injure, intentionally damaging a window, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. He was sentenced by Judge Dawson in the District Court to five years and six months imprisonment for the aggravated burglary charge, among other sentences. Drewett appealed against the sentence for the aggravated burglary charge, arguing that it was wrong in principle and excessive. The appeal was heard by O’Regan, Chisholm, and MacKenzie JJ in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the sentence imposed was wrong in principle and whether the minimum period of imprisonment was justified. The appellant contended that the Judge erred in referring to a case on aggravated robbery, that the description of the appellant’s earlier offending was not similar, that the Judge relied on a police summary of facts containing unconvicted allegations, and that the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment was based on an unproven “road rage” incident. The Court had to determine whether the sentence was within the appropriate range and whether the minimum period of imprisonment was justified.

The Court of Appeal found that the Judge did not adequately state the starting point, the uplift from that point to reflect aggravating factors, or the discount for mitigating factors. Therefore, the Court had to undertake the sentencing exercise again to establish whether the sentence imposed was within range. The Court concluded that an appropriate starting point was four years and six months imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the break-in and the totality of the offending. The Court added one year and six months to the starting point to reflect aggravating features, such as the fact that the offending occurred while the appellant was on bail and his poor criminal record. The Court allowed a credit of 25% for the guilty plea, leading to an end sentence of four years and six months imprisonment. The Court also found that a minimum period of imprisonment of two years and three months was appropriate to hold the appellant accountable for the harm done to the victim and to deter him from committing similar offences.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence and the minimum period of imprisonment for the aggravated burglary charge, and substituted a sentence of four years and six months imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of two years and three months. All other sentences imposed in the District Court remained unchanged.