Ransfield v Police - [2014] NZHC 1046

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2014-470-000006 [2014] NZHC 1046

RAYMOND JOHN RANSFIELD Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 8 May 2014

Appearances:

Nicholas Dutch for the Appellant
Hayley Sheridan for the Respondent

Judgment:

19 May 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF MOORE J [Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by on 19 May 2014 at 3:00pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar
Date:

RANSFIELD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 1046 [19 May 2014]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Raymond John Ransfield, was sentenced in the Tauranga

District Court on 29 January 2014 having pleaded guilty to

(a) one charge of assault with intent to injure;

(b) one charge of breach of intensive supervision; and

(c) one charge of breach of community work.

[2] On the charge of assault with intent to injure he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years, one month and two weeks. In respect of the charges of breach of intensive supervision and community work he was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, cumulative on the sentence imposed on the charge of assault with intent to injure.

[3] He appeals this sentence.

Grounds of appeal

[4] Although the appellant specified nine grounds of appeal in the notice, these can be summarised as follows:

(a) The sentence was wrong in principle. This is on the basis that:

(i)R v Nuku was incorrectly applied in that the Court failed to adjust for the lesser maximum penalty the appellant faced. Furthermore, band 1 in Nuku applied rather than band 2;1

(ii)the Court failed to accept that the absence of injury justified a lesser sentence.

1 R v Nuku [2012] NZCA 584.

(b) The sentence was manifestly excessive. In particular:

(i)the sentence was too long having regard to the principle of totality;

(ii)insufficient weight was given to the fact the incident occurred in 2012 and there had been no subsequent incidents;

(iii)insufficient weight was given to the fact that following the assault the victim requested to reside with the appellant and then resided with the appellant without further incident;

(iv)the individual sentences on the other charges were manifestly excessive with the excessiveness increased by the totality of the sentence that was imposed.

Background facts

Assault with intent to injure

[5] The appellant is the father of the victim. At the time of the offending the victim lived with his father and other family members.

[6] On the morning of 18 August 2012 the victim left home without telling anyone and went horse riding with family members. As he neared home on his return some hours later the appellant, who was home at the time learned from others that his son was on a horse nearby. Angry he had been away so long, the appellant ran onto the road yelling and swearing at his son. He grabbed him and tried to pull him off his mount but was unsuccessful. He then grasped the victim by the wrist but…

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 Ransfield v Police

Details

AGLC: Ransfield v Police [2014] NZHC 1046
Case: [2014] NZHC 1046
Decision Date: 19 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Raymond John Ransfield appeals against his sentence imposed by the Tauranga District Court. The court found him guilty of one charge of assault with intent to injure, one charge of breach of intensive supervision, and one charge of breach of community work. The court sentenced him to two years, one month, and two weeks of imprisonment for the assault charge and two months’ imprisonment for the other charges, cumulative on the assault charge. The appellant argues that the sentence was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive. The main legal issues were whether the sentence was incorrect and whether it was manifestly excessive considering the totality of the offending.

The court held that the sentence was manifestly excessive considering the totality of the offending. The court agreed that the offending fell within band 2 of Nuku, and the starting point of two years was appropriate. However, the court found the final sentence to be too long, considering the totality of the offending. The court considered a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment appropriate, with an uplift of three months for prior offending, resulting in a final sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment for the assault charge. The court considered a sentence of one month on each of the other charges to be appropriate, resulting in an end sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment.

The appeal is allowed on the ground that the end sentence was manifestly excessive considering the totality of the offending. The sentence is quashed and replaced with a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment, being 18 months’ imprisonment on the assault charge and a cumulative two months’ imprisonment on the other charges.

Orders