Legal Research
Cases
Reedy v Police

Reedy v Police

Case [2019] NZHC 2435 26 September 2019

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-000317

[2019] NZHC 2435

BETWEEN
JAIDE REEDY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 23 September 2019

Appearances:

T Clee for the Appellant

G J Fraser and M J Mortimer for the Respondent

Judgment:

26 September 2019

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 September 2019 at 10.30 am

…………………………………………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
Tudor Clee, Barrister, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

REEDY v POLICE [2019] NZHC 2435 [26 September 2019]

[1] Ms Reedy was convicted and sentenced on eight charges arising from two separate occasions. The first set occurred on 31 January 2019:

(a)shoplifts (under $500);1 and

(b)common assault.2

[2]The second set occurred on 10 February 2019:

(a)shoplifts (under $500) x 2;3

(b)assault with a weapon x 2;4

(c)intentional damage;5

(d)possessing a knife in public place.6

[3] Ms Reedy appeals the sentence of Judge Ronayne given on 22 May 2019 in the Auckland District Court.7 The Judge sentenced Ms Reedy to two years and five months’ imprisonment.

[4] The issue is over the starting point. The Judge adopted a starting point of three years. Mr Clee, for Ms Reedy, submits an appropriate starting point is eight months’ imprisonment. Ms Fraser for the respondent accepts that the starting point adopted by the Judge was too high, but submits an appropriate starting point is 18 to 24 months.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 223(d). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
2      Section 196. Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment.
3      Section 223(d). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
4      Section 202C. Maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 269(2)(a). Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
6      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 13A.
7      New Zealand Police v Reedy [2019] NZDC 9624.

Background

[5] The first offending occurred on 31 January 2019. Ms Reedy stole a sandwich worth $6.50 from a bakery. She then assaulted a member of the public, who tried to take a picture of her, by hitting the complainant around the head with her handbag.

[6] The second offending is more serious. It occurred on 10 February 2019. Around 10.15 am, Ms Reedy went into the Auckland City Mission Op Shop, took a dress and handbag, valued at $21, and left without paying. She left her own handbag in the store.

[7] Around 2.20 pm, she was sitting outside the same shop. The store supervisor recognised her, came out and questioned her about the theft. Ms Reedy became verbally aggressive and demanded the return of her handbag. The verbal altercation escalated and Ms Reedy pulled a meat cleaver from another handbag, presumably the handbag she stole, and again demanded the return of the bag she left behind. The supervisor, fearing assault, went back inside the store. Ms Reedy followed him. There was another employee inside the store. Ms Reedy continued to ask for her handbag and money she said it contained, brandishing the cleaver and advancing slowly on the complainants. The two…

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 Reedy v Police

Details

AGLC: Reedy v Police [2019] NZHC 2435
Case: [2019] NZHC 2435
Decision Date: 26 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Reedy v Police, the appellant, Ms. Reedy, appealed the sentence imposed on her by the Auckland District Court. Ms. Reedy was convicted and sentenced on eight charges arising from two separate incidents, including shoplifting, common assault, assault with a weapon, and intentional damage. The court was required to decide on the appropriate starting point for sentencing, with the appellant arguing for an eight-month imprisonment starting point and the respondent accepting that the starting point adopted by the Judge was too high but suggesting an appropriate starting point of 18 to 24 months. The High Court found that the starting point of three years was too high and accepted that the guidelines in Nuku v R should apply. After considering the various factors, the Court found that an appropriate starting point was 13 months' imprisonment. The court also found that the discrete adjustments made by the sentencing judge were acceptable, except for the guilty plea discount, which needed to be adjusted to account for the lower starting point. Therefore, the court substituted a sentence of one year's imprisonment on the two charges of assault with a weapon, which was materially different to the sentence imposed by the original sentencing judge. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was substituted as outlined.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal and substitute a sentence of one year's imprisonment on the two charges of assault with a weapon, while maintaining the correctness of the sentences on the other charges. The court thanked counsel for their helpful written and oral submissions.

Orders