Ralph v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 1434

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2021-463-000046

[2021] NZHC 1434

BETWEEN
MARCELLE RALPH

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 14 June 2021

Counsel:

P J Kaye for appellant J Sutton for respondent

Judgment:

17 June 2021

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 June 2021 at 11:00am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Pollett Legal Limited, Tauranga Counsel: P J Kaye, Barrister, Auckland

RALPH v R [2021] NZHC 1434 [17 June 2021]

Introduction

[1] Marcelle Ralph pleaded guilty to eight charges of theft, three charges of trespass and one charge of breach of release conditions in the Tauranga District Court. The offending took place between June 2020 and January 2021.

[2] On 11 March 2021, Judge P R Connell sentenced Ms Ralph to 11 months’ imprisonment. She appeals against that sentence on the grounds that:

(a)the Judge erred in imposing a sentence of imprisonment rather than a sentence of intensive supervision; and

(b)if this Court is of the opinion that a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate in all the circumstances, the Judge nonetheless erred by adopting a starting point that was manifestly excessive.

The offending

Theft of property valued at under $500 – 17 June 2020

[3] On 17 June 2020, Ms Ralph was at Rebel Sports Tauranga. She grabbed a pair of Nike slides, valued at $50, and removed the tags from them. Ms Ralph placed the slides down the front of her pants and left the store without paying for them. Rebel Sports staff discovered the theft upon reviewing their CCTV footage. Ms Ralph admitted to taking the slides.

Breach of release conditions – 9 July 2020

[4] On 6 April 2020, Ms Ralph was sentenced to one month of imprisonment for unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, theft and wilful trespass. She was inducted into her release conditions on 18 June 2020.

[5] On 9 July 2020, Ms Ralph failed to report to her probation officer and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her non-compliance.

Wilful trespass – 23 July 2020

[6] On 18 September 2018, Ms Ralph was served with a trespass notice to refrain from going to Paper Plus Te Puke. On 23 July 2020, Ms Ralph entered Paper Plus Te Puke, walked through the store, and exited through the rear. She told police that she was aware that she was trespassed. Ms Ralph said, however, that she was trespassed between 18 months and two years ago, and she just walked through the store for a short cut.

Theft of property valued at under $500 – 31 October 2020

[7] On 31 October 2020, Ms Ralph was at Gao Trading in Te Puke. She removed seven t-shirts from the display racks, rolled them up and placed them in her jacket. The t-shirts have a total value of $140.

[8] Ms Ralph admitted to police that she had stolen the t-shirts, although she said that she thought she had…

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 Ralph v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ralph v The Queen [2021] NZHC 1434
Case: [2021] NZHC 1434
Decision Date: 17 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Marcelle Ralph appealed against her 11-month imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge P R Connell for multiple thefts and breaches of release conditions. The primary legal issue was whether the Judge erred in imposing a sentence of imprisonment rather than a non-custodial sentence and whether the starting point for the sentence was manifestly excessive. Counsel for the appellant argued that a sentence of intensive supervision would be more appropriate given Ms Ralph's history of non-custodial sentences that failed to deter her from reoffending. However, the Judge was sceptical that a non-custodial sentence would be effective due to Ms Ralph's entrenched offending pattern and drug addiction issues. The court found that while rehabilitation is a purpose of sentencing, it is not the sole purpose. A custodial sentence may better serve the purposes of holding the offender accountable, denouncing the conduct and protecting the community. As for the starting point, the court found that the 15-month starting point adopted by the Judge was within the appropriate range given the totality of the sentencing process. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders