Rangi v Police - [2013] NZHC 465

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2013-412-004 [2013] NZHC 465

JOHN WILLIAM RANGI
Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 8 March 2013

Appearances: R D Smith for Respondent
S Dolby for Appellant

Judgment: 8 March 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J

[1] This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant was sentenced to two years and one month imprisonment.

[2] The appellant had been apprehended burgling a commercial premises, entered at night. He gained entry by climbing through a hole in a padlocked wire mesh gate. He smashed an office window to gain entry to the office itself. He apparently searched the premises for cash, but was disturbed by a security guard. There was a confrontation, but there was no violence.

[3] The appellant has 27 previous convictions for burglary, from 2000 through to
2009. He is 32 years of age. He has other convictions, including drugs, dishonesty and driving related offences.

RANGI V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC DUN CRI-2013-412-004 [8 March 2013]

[4] He was categorised as a recidivist burglar, following the guidance of the full Court of the High Court in Senior v Police.[1] The key reasoning of the Judge is in [10] of the decision, which reads as follows:
[1] Senior v Police (2000) 18 CRNZ 340 (HC).

In my view, recognising that this was a one-off incident, as opposed to a number of burglaries, with few aggravating features, this attracts a starting point of two years. There will be an uplift for previous convictions by nine months. That is a start-point sentence of two years and nine months, less a full R v Hessell [2009] NZCA 450, [2010] 2 NZLR 298 discount for your guilty plea of eight months, which means that you finish with a sentence of two years and one month’s imprisonment.

[5] The full Court decision of the High Court in Senior is useful for identifying the characteristics of someone who should be classified as a recidivist burglar. Mr Smith submitted, however, that it is no longer a reliable guide for starting points, and that I shall be better guided by decisions of the Court of Appeal. I accept that submission. Mr Smith agreed with submissions of Ms Dolby, that better guidance for starting points are the decisions of the Court of Appeal in R v Stevens[2] and R v
[2] R v Stevens [2009] NZCA 190.
Brown,[3] both decided in 2009. Both took a starting point of 18 months. Stevens was
[3] R v Brown [2009] NZCA 288.

the burglary of commercial premises. Brown was the burglary of a school, where the appellant had removed glass from a window and taken a computer. Stevens and the case of R v Columbus[4] indicate that the Court, in the case of recidivist burglars, will give quite a significant uplift for previous convictions. In Stevens it was for 12 months, in Columbus it was for 12 months.
[4] R v Columbus [2008] NZCA 192.

[6] Mr Smith…

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 Rangi v Police

Details

AGLC: Rangi v Police [2013] NZHC 465
Case: [2013] NZHC 465
Decision Date: 8 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rangi v Police, the appellant, John William Rangi, appealed against the sentence he received for burgling a commercial premises. The appellant was sentenced to two years and one month imprisonment. The court was required to determine whether the starting point for sentencing was appropriately set and whether the sentence was proportionate given the appellant's history of similar offences. The appellant had a long history of burglary convictions, and the current incident involved breaking into a commercial building at night, causing a confrontation with a security guard but no violence.

The key legal issue was the appropriate starting point for sentencing a recidivist burglar like Rangi. The original sentencing judge had used a starting point of two years, which the appellant argued was too high. Rangi's legal representative argued that more recent Court of Appeal decisions, which set a starting point of 18 months for similar offences, should be followed. The court acknowledged that the starting point of two years was not justified by the relevant authorities and adopted the 18-month starting point, as recommended by the appellant's representative. Additionally, the court applied a greater uplift for Rangi's previous convictions than the original judge had, leading to a new total sentence of 23 months imprisonment, reduced by a discount for the appellant's guilty plea.

The court concluded that the original sentence was too severe and re-sentenced Rangi to 23 months imprisonment with six months of special conditions of release. The special conditions included attending and completing any counselling or treatment deemed appropriate to address substance use, as directed by a probation officer. The court allowed the appeal and substituted the original sentence with the new one, reflecting a more appropriate starting point and uplift for the appellant's history of similar offences.

Orders