R v Felts - [2013] NZHC 451

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-055-001262

CRI-2011-055-003191 [2013] NZHC 451

THE QUEEN

v

MARK FELTS

Appearances: N R Webby for Crown
E Te Whata for Prisoner

Judgment: 8 March 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF ELLIS J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, P O Box 2213, Auckland 1140
Fax: (09) 336-7629 – Email: mick.webby@meredithconnell.co.nz
Public Defence Service, P O Box 76715, Manukau 2241
Fax: (09) 261-2502 – E Te Whata – Email: edith.tewhata@justice.govt.nz

R V FELTS HC AK CRI-2012-055-001262 [8 March 2013]

[1] Mr Felts, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty in the District

Court to ten charges that relate to a variety of offending between July 2011 and May

2012.More specifically, you pleaded guilty to: (a) 4 counts of burglary;1
(b) 1 count of cultivating cannabis;2

(c) 1 count of possessing cannabis for sale or supply;3

(d) 1 count of possession of methamphetamine;4

(e) 1 count of possessing a knife;5

(f) 1 count of wilful damage;6 and

(g) 1 count of failing to answer bail.7

[2] The different types and circumstances of these offences make sentencing you a little but complicated, but I am going to try and keep my explanation and comments as brief and clear as possible.

Facts

[3] First, I need to summarise the facts that relate to each of the charges. I will deal with the burglaries first, then the drug offences and then the other charges.

[4] The first burglary in time took place on 9 July 2011. At about 1.15 am on that date you broke into the Mobil Station at 222 Great South Road, Drury. The
CCTV showed you climbing down through a hole in the roof and into the area

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a), maximum sentence 10 years’ imprisonment.
2 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9(3), maximum sentence 7 years’ imprisonment.
3 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (3)(c), maximum sentence 8 years’ imprisonment.
4 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7*1)(a) and (2), six months’ imprisonment or a $10,000 fine.
5 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 13A, three months’ imprisonment or a fine of $2,000.
6 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a), three months’ imprisonment and $2,000 fine.
7 Bail Act 2000, s 37(a), one year imprisonment or $2,000 fine.

behind the counter. You took property from a cabinet used to store surplus cigarette cartons but it is not known how much you took. You left again through the hole in the roof.

[5] Just before 2 am on 29 April 2012 you again burgled the Mobil Station. The CCTV footage shows you repeating what you had done on 9 July the year before. Again, it is not known exactly what you took.

[6] At about 5 in the morning of 3 May 2012 you burgled the Manuroa Superette in Takanini. The CCTV shows that you again got in and out through a hole made in the roof. You took cigarettes and cash worth approximately $5,000.

[7] Six days later at a similar…

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 Felts

Details

AGLC: R v Felts [2013] NZHC 451
Case: [2013] NZHC 451
Decision Date: 8 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Mark Felts appeared for sentencing on multiple charges, including burglary, drug offences, and other related charges. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for each of the charges, considering the nature of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and his personal circumstances. The main legal issues were the appropriate starting points and discounts for each charge, the cumulative effect of the sentences, and the overall sentence that would adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences while also considering the defendant's efforts to reform.

The court considered the defendant's extensive criminal history, which included multiple burglary and dishonesty convictions, and drug-related offences. The court also took into account the defendant's guilty pleas, his remorse, and his efforts to engage in rehabilitation programs while in custody. The court determined that the appropriate sentence for the burglary charges was three years imprisonment, taking into account the defendant's prior convictions and the seriousness of the offences. For the drug-related charges, the court determined a starting point of 16 months imprisonment, which was then reduced by 25% due to the defendant's guilty pleas and positive steps taken in prison. The final combined sentence for all the offences was set at three years and nine months imprisonment.

The court also made orders for the destruction of the cannabis and cannabis plants found during the investigation, and noted that reparation sought was not feasible. The court acknowledged the defendant's efforts to reform and expressed hope for his successful reintegration into society upon release from prison.

Orders