Reeves v The King - [2023] NZHC 3140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI 2023-488-59

CRI 2023-488-60

[2023] NZHC 3140

BETWEEN
LEVI REEVES

Appellant

AND

THE CROWN

Respondent

Hearing: 31 October 2023

Appearances:

M Taylor-Cyphers for the appellant D Soich for the Crown

Judgment:

8 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

[Appeal against Sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 November 2023 at 4.00 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

REEVES v THE CROWN [2023] NZHC 3140 [8 November 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mr Reeves appeals the sentence imposed on him after he pleaded guilty to two sets of charges.

[2] The first set was one charge of receiving property exceeding $1,000,1 one charge of conversion of a vehicle,2 one charge of failing to stop for an enforcement officer,3 one charge of dangerous driving,4 one charge of failing to stop to ascertain injury,5 and one charge of driving under the influence of drugs.6 The second set was one charge of possession of an offensive weapon,7 one charge of failing to remain stopped for an enforcement officer,8 one charge of conversion of a vehicle,9 one charge of dangerous driving,10 and one charge of possession of a knife.11 On 10 August 2023, Judge D J Orchard sentenced Mr Reeves to two years and five months’ imprisonment for this offending.12

The offending

Offending resulting in the first set of charges

[3] On 1 May 2022, at approximately 1.45 pm, Mr Reeves and two associates were driving from Auckland to Whangārei in a stolen car. The car had been taken from Auckland between 7.30 pm 28 April 2022 and 9 am 29 April 2022.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 66(1), 246 and 247(a). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 66(1) and 226(1). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 177(1)(a) and (b).    Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment.
4      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b) and (2). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment or a $4,500 fine.
5      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(c) and (2). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment or a $4,500 fine.
6      Land Transport Act 1998, s 58(1) and (3). Maximum penalty: two years’ imprisonment or a $6,000 fine.
7      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A. Maximum penalty: three years’ imprisonment.
8      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52A(1)(b) and 114. Maximum penalty: $10,000 fine.
9      Crimes Act 1961, s 226(1). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
10     Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment or a $4,500 fine.
11     Summary Offences Act 1981, s 13A. Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
12     R v Reeves [2023] NZDC 17032.

[4] The car ran out of petrol at about 2 pm. The trio were stranded on State Highway 1 near Waipu. They then stole another car, a Toyota, from a nearby address. The owner of the Toyota was at home and observed the car being driven down the road. He drove after the offenders in another car, a…

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 Reeves v The King

Details

AGLC: Reeves v The King [2023] NZHC 3140
Case: [2023] NZHC 3140
Decision Date: 8 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Levi Reeves appeals his sentence imposed by Judge D J Orchard after pleading guilty to multiple charges including receiving property exceeding $1,000, conversion of a vehicle, failing to stop for an enforcement officer, dangerous driving, failing to stop to ascertain injury, and driving under the influence of drugs. The second set of charges includes possession of an offensive weapon, failing to remain stopped for an enforcement officer, another conversion of a vehicle, dangerous driving, and possession of a knife. Judge Orchard sentenced Reeves to two years and five months’ imprisonment. Reeves argues the sentence was excessive due to the Judge's failure to consider the totality principle, an alleged double-counting of his previous convictions, and a lack of reduction for time spent on electronically monitored (EM) bail.

The court must decide whether the Judge erred in not considering the totality principle, whether the uplift for previous convictions was appropriate, and whether a reduction for time on EM bail should have been made. The court found that although the Judge did not explicitly address the totality principle, the overall starting point was not disproportionate to the gravity of the offending. The court also found that the uplift for prior convictions, though at the higher end, was justified given Reeves committed the second set of offences while on bail. However, the court found that Reeves should have received some credit for time spent on EM bail, despite his absconding twice. Moreover, the court found that the Judge made an arithmetical error in applying the discounts for Reeves’ background and rehabilitation prospects, which led to a sentence that was three months longer than it should have been.

In conclusion, the court allows Reeves’ appeal and reduces his sentence from two years and five months’ imprisonment to two years and two months’ imprisonment. The court corrects the arithmetical error and makes a small reduction for time spent on EM bail. The sentence is within the range that can be justified by accepted sentencing principles and does not appear manifestly excessive.

Orders