Legal Research
Cases
Reedy v Police

Reedy v Police

Link copied

Case Copied 19 May 2015 11 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-409-000024 [2015] NZHC 1069

BETWEEN
SHANNON REEDY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 19 May 2015

Appearances:

N J Hansen for Appellant
S E Burdes for Respondent

Judgment:

19 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Mr Reedy appeals against his sentence of two years, three months’ imprisonment on one charge of male assaults female and one of possession of cannabis for supply.1

[2] The appeal is advanced on the basis that the uplift for previous convictions was too high. If this argument is accepted, Mr Reedy’s lawyer, Ms Hansen, says that it will take the sentence to the point where home detention can be considered. If this is the case, it is argued that home detention would be appropriate. The Crown opposes.

The offending

[3] I do not need to detail the offending in full. Suffice to say that on

4 December 2014, Mr Reedy was issued with a police safety order arising from a domestic incident with his then partner. The order was to endure for a period of five
days. However, two days later, a verbal altercation ensued between Mr Reedy and

1 Police v Reedy [2015] NZDC 4541.

REEDY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 1069 [19 May 2015]

his partner, which descended into physical pushing and threats. Mr Reedy’s partner

called the police.

[4] When police attended the scene of the domestic dispute, they undertook a search of the property in reliance on the provisions of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. The search yielded a bucket containing cannabis, which was separated into four one ounce bags with a combined total weight of 125 grams. In Mr Reedy’s vehicle the police also located a bag containing $9,000 in cash, in denominations of
$20 and $50.

The District Court sentencing

[5] In sentencing Mr Reedy, Judge Garland recognised that he was required to take into account the principles and purposes of sentencing in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002. In particular, His Honour took into account the need to hold Mr Reedy accountable for the harm he had done, and the principles of denunciation and deterrence. It was noted that in drug offending, personal circumstances carry little weight. In terms of principles, consistency and the least restrictive outcome were focused on.

[6] In relation to the lead offence, Judge Garland relied on the guideline judgment R v Terewi.2 It was considered that the offending fell within category two of Terewi, with starting points of between two and four years.3 It was also observed that the Court of Appeal has confirmed that any commercial dealing, no matter how trivial, fits within this category.4

[7] Judge Garland therefore fixed this offending as coming in at the bottom end of category two and took a starting point of two years’ imprisonment. From the starting point, Judge Garland recognised Mr Reedy’s extensive criminal history
would require an uplift. He said:5

2 R v Terewi [1999]…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Reedy v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NZHC 1069
Decision Date: 19 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Mr Reedy, appealed against his sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment for one charge of male assaults female and one of possession of cannabis for supply. The appeal was based on the argument that the uplift for previous convictions was too high. The respondent, the New Zealand Police, opposed the appeal. The appellant's lawyer argued that if the uplift was reduced, home detention could be considered as a more appropriate sentence. The legal issues in this case were whether there was an error in the sentence and if a different sentence should be imposed. The court considered the function of uplifting for previous convictions, the principles which warrant an uplift, and the need for the uplift to be proportionate to the starting point selected. The court concluded that while the uplift was too high, the sentence imposed was within range and a change from two years three months to two years one month would amount to tinkering with the sentence imposed in the District Court. The appeal was dismissed.

Final orders: The appeal is dismissed.

Orders