Rattray v Police - [2014] NZHC 663

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2013-409-145 [2014] NZHC 663

BETWEEN
JOHN NGARIMU RATTRAY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 3 April 2014

Appearances:

E Bulger for Appellant
K Basire for Respondent

Judgment:

3 April 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] This is an appeal from a 3 year and 5 month sentence of imprisonment imposed by Judge Farish for arson. The appellant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of wilfully setting fire to property in circumstances that endangered life, 2 charges of arson simpliciter, 1 charge of possession of a knife in a public place, and 1 charge of intentional damage under the Summary Offences Act 1981. The charges of wilfully setting fire to property endangering life carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

The facts

[2] The facts of the offending are not in issue, nor the Judge’s analysis of the

aggravating features of the offending.

[3] On 5 July 2013, the appellant set a fire on the stove of a flat he shared with four other occupants. He arranged a series of items on the stove, turned all the elements on and then left the property. One of the flatmates smelt smoke and turned the elements off. However, the appellant returned and turned the elements back on
again. Fortunately, the fire was detected and Police and the fire brigade alerted.

RATTRAY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 663 [3 April 2014]

[4] The appellant was apprehended on his return to the property, where he was found in possession of a small vegetable knife. After being charged with the possession of the knife and the serious charge of arson where life was endangered, the appellant was seen by a psychiatrist and psychiatric nurse. While in custody and in his unwell state, he ripped a Police blanket. He was committed under a compulsory treatment order and whilst on remand assessed as to fitness to plead at Hillmorton Hospital. The appellant subsequently decamped from that facility. He was on medication and still unwell. While at large, the appellant began abusing alcohol which aggravated his bipolar disorder.

[5] After leaving Hillmorton Hospital, the appellant set fire to the contents of a plastic wheelie bin stored against the side of a temporary dairy. This caused damage to the outside of the building and also caused stock damage to the value of some
$1,250. At that time the appellant also set fire to a pile of possessions stacked against a garage door of another property, thereby endangering three dwellings attached to the garage. This fire caused damage to the value of $29,803. Significantly, it put at risk people who were sleeping in their homes, in additional to causing emotional and financial stress to the shop owners. These fires were the basis for the further charge of arson laid in its aggravated form of endangering life.

[6] In the early hours of the following morning, the appellant proceeded to light two further separate fires in two council rubbish…

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 Rattray v Police

Details

AGLC: Rattray v Police [2014] NZHC 663
Case: [2014] NZHC 663
Decision Date: 3 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, John Ngarimua Rattray, the appellant, has appealed against his 3 year and 5 month imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge Farish for arson. The appellant pleaded guilty to various charges, including setting fire to property in circumstances that endangered life. The central issue in this appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing Judge was appropriate, specifically whether the 10% discount applied to account for the appellant's mental health issues was adequate. The Crown argued that the sentence was appropriate and that no error had been identified in the sentence imposed by Judge Farish. The Court found that while the appellant's mental health condition played a central role in the offending, he also had an appreciation of his responsibility to take his medication and keep himself safe. The Court concluded that the appellant must accept a considerable degree of responsibility for his actions. Given the limited basis for varying the sentence, the Court found no error in the balance achieved by Judge Farish in allowing the deductions for plea and the appellant's mental health. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made.

Orders