R v Latimer - [2023] NZHC 2315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2023-463-65

[2023] NZHC 2315

THE KING

v

TRITAN LATIMER

Hearing: 24 July 2023

Appearances:

M Davie for the Appellant

N Dutch for the Respondent (via AVL)

Judgment:

31 August 2023

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 August 2023 at 4.00 pm pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Crown Law

Counsel:
N Dutch

R v LATIMER [2023] NZHC 2315 [31 August 2023]

[1] The Crown has appealed against the sentence given to Tritan Latimer. In March 2023 Mr Latimer was sentenced to six months’ home detention by Judge M M Mason on a single charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply, a sentence currently being served at a Grace Foundation facility.1

[2] Mr Latimer had accepted a sentence indication from Judge Mason given on 9 March 2023.2 In that indication Judge Mason noted that the Crown had submitted that a starting point of five and a half years’ imprisonment was appropriate, together with a 25 per cent discount for a guilty plea.3 Instead, with reference to the Supreme Court decision in Philip v R,4 Judge Mason accepted the submissions of Mr Dutch on behalf of Mr Latimer that the starting point should be four and a half years’ imprisonment.5

[3] On that basis the sentencing indication was accepted by Mr Latimer and sentencing then proceeded on 15 May 2023. In addition to the guilty plea discount, at sentencing Judge Mason allowed for a 25 per cent discount for matters contained in the s 27 report,6 and a further 10 per cent for rehabilitation and remorse.7 This brought the end sentence below two years’ imprisonment and a result after deducting a further five and a half months for time spent in custody on remand Mr Latimer’s end sentence was six months’ home detention to be served while completing rehabilitation at the Grace Foundation.8

[4] The Crown appeals Mr Latimer’s sentence under s 246 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The Court must allow the appeal if satisfied that there is an error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed.9

1      R v Latimer [2023] NZDC 9412 [DC sentencing notes].
2      R v Latimer DC Tauranga CRI-2022-070-003605, 9 March 2023 [DC sentence indication].
3 At [6].
4      Philip v R [2022] NZSC 149, [2022] 1 NZLR 571.
5      DC sentence indication, above n 2, at [7]–[8].
6 DC sentencing notes, above n 1, at [7].
7 At [9].
8 At [11].
9      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250.

[5] As this is a Solicitor-General’s appeal, and the Crown seeks the substitution of a sentence of home detention with one of imprisonment, the following principles apply:10

(a)A sentence should not be increased pursuant to a Solicitor-General’s appeal unless it is clear that the sentence which was imposed is manifestly inadequate or the Crown is able to point…

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 Latimer

Details

AGLC: R v Latimer [2023] NZHC 2315
Case: [2023] NZHC 2315
Decision Date: 31 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Latimer was heard on appeal by the Crown against the sentence given to Tritan Latimer for possession of methamphetamine for supply. Latimer was initially sentenced to six months of home detention by Judge Mason. The Crown appealed, arguing that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and sought a substitution with imprisonment.

The legal issues revolved around whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly inadequate or if there was an error in principle upon which the sentencing judge acted. The Crown's appeal sought to challenge the starting point for the sentence, the discounts applied, and the appropriateness of a rehabilitative sentence.

The Court considered the principles governing Solicitor-General’s appeals and the precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases such as Philip v R. The Court noted that the Crown’s position on appeal was inconsistent with its earlier submissions during the sentence indication and sentencing processes, which undermined the sentencing indication process. The Court also observed that even the adjusted sentence sought by the Crown was close to the threshold for a community-based sentence. Given the significant differential and the belated change in the Crown's position, the Court found that the appeal did not meet the high threshold for intervention. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence of six months’ home detention.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of six months' home detention for Tritan Latimer was upheld.

Orders