R v Harper

In R v Harper, the appellant, Denis John Harper, sought to appeal against both his conviction and sentence following his trial in the District Court at Hamilton. Harper was convicted on two charges of damaging fibre-optic cabling with intent to obtain a benefit on 9 and 10 May 2006. The Crown alleged that Harper drove the principal offender(s) to the Te Rapa yards in his vehicle, and then drove them away again, or used his vehicle to try to pull the cables out of their trench with a rope found tied partly around some of the cables in the Te Rapa yards and partly on the towing eye of his vehicle. Harper was sentenced to nine months imprisonment and ordered to pay reparation of $5,000. Judge O’Driscoll granted Harper leave to apply for home detention and deferred the commencement of his prison sentence.

The appeal against conviction argued that the jury could not reasonably have inferred guilt on the circumstantial evidence which comprised the Crown case. The appeal against sentence was not formally abandoned, but the appellant’s counsel felt unable to argue that the sentence was wrong or manifestly excessive. The court considered the appeal against conviction, which was based on the argument that the jury could not find Harper guilty based on his car's presence in the railyards, or even based on an inference of his presence. The jury had to find that Harper was actively involved, helping in the acts of damage. The Crown’s case was that Harper’s role in this offending comprised driving the principal offender(s) who cut the cables to the Te Rapa yards in his vehicle, and/or using his vehicle to try to pull the cables out of their trench with the rope found tied partly around some of the cables in the Te Rapa yards and partly on the towing eye of his vehicle. The court found that the trial judge had put the Crown case accurately and fully in his summing up to the jury. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

The court also dismissed the appeal against sentence. The court considered Harper’s circumstances, which ruled out a fine, and the pre-sentence report, which considered him unsuitable for community work and reported that supervision was not warranted. The sentencing options thus reduced to reparation and imprisonment. The court found that a sentence of nine months imprisonment was merciful, given the cost of repairing the damage to the cables and the potential endangerment to human life. The court also noted that the Judge ordered Harper to pay $5,000 reparation, which remitted his $2,000 outstanding fines. Both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence were dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal, both as to conviction and sentence, was dismissed.