Richardson v The the Queen - [2022] NZHC 2093

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-404-213

[2022] NZHC 2093

BETWEEN
GREGORY ZACHARIAH RICHARDSON

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

S D Withers and V I Tava for Appellant C Wilkinson for Respondent

Judgment:

23 August 2022

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 August 2022 at 11 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

RICHARDSON v R [2022] NZHC 2093 [23 August 2022]

[1] Mr Richardson pleaded guilty in the District Court to charges of assaulting a person with whom he was in a family relationship, resisting police, assaulting a police officer and wilful damage. On 13 May 2022, Judge B A Gibson sentenced Mr Richardson to three months home detention and ordered him to perform 100 hours of community work.1 He also imposed post-detention conditions for a period of six months.

[2] Mr Richardson appeals on the basis that the sentence the Judge imposed is manifestly excessive. After the appeal was set down for hearing I issued a minute seeking the assistance of counsel for the respondent regarding one aspect of the appeal. I also held a telephone conference with counsel on 22 August 2022. This resulted in counsel reaching agreement that the appeal must be allowed. The fixture on 23 August 2022 was accordingly vacated and I propose to determine the appeal on the papers.

The offending

[3] The charge of wilful damage related to offending that occurred on 22 October 2020. On this occasion Mr Richardson had been placed inside a police vehicle. He proceeded to kick the centre console of the vehicle, causing the air conditioning unit to crack and cave in.

[4] The remaining charges were laid following an incident that occurred on 16 February 2021. On that date Mr Richardson became involved in an argument with his former partner whilst they were at his address. This escalated into physical violence, with Mr Richardson kicking his former partner in the tailbone. This caused her to cry out in pain and fall to the ground. Mr Richardson then demanded she leave his property and she did so.

[5] A neighbour heard the commotion and called the police. When they arrived, Mr Richardson was aggressive and abusive towards them. He slammed a door on a police officer’s hand, causing the glass in the door to break and injuring the officer’s left index finger and palm. He then resisted attempts by the police to place handcuffs on him.

1 R v Richardson [2022] NZDC 11482.

The sentence

[6] Mr Richardson pleaded guilty to the charges after receiving a sentence indication from Judge Gibson on 15 September 2021. This informs the basis on which the Judge proceeded at sentencing.

[7] The Judge selected a starting point of five months imprisonment on the lead charge of assault on a person in a family relationship. He added a three month uplift to reflect the…

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 Richardson v The the Queen

Details

AGLC: Richardson v The the Queen [2022] NZHC 2093
Case: [2022] NZHC 2093
Decision Date: 23 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Gregory Zachariah Richardson, the appellant, appealed against the sentence imposed by Judge B A Gibson in the District Court. Richardson had pleaded guilty to charges including assaulting a person with whom he was in a family relationship, resisting police, assaulting a police officer, and wilful damage. The District Court sentenced Richardson to three months of home detention and 100 hours of community work, with additional post-detention conditions for six months. Richardson's appeal centred on the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether the District Court judge had appropriately considered the time Richardson had spent in custody on remand before imposing the sentence. The appeal hinged on whether the judge should have applied the "two for one" approach, which equates time spent on remand to serving a sentence twice as long, or the "one for one" approach, which reduces the sentence of home detention by the actual time spent in custody. Counsel agreed that the judge should have considered the time spent in custody and that the appropriate approach was the "two for one" method.

Lang J held that the District Court judge had not adequately considered the time Richardson had spent in custody on remand. The judge's indication that he would consider alternatives to imprisonment suggested he was aware of this issue. Applying the "two for one" approach, the six-month sentence was entirely extinguished. Consequently, the sentence of three months home detention and 100 hours of community work was quashed. Richardson was sentenced to six months imprisonment on the charge of assaulting a person with whom he was in a special relationship, and one month imprisonment on each of the remaining charges, to be served concurrently, making him eligible for immediate release. Special release conditions were imposed for a period of six months.

In summary, the High Court quashed the original sentence and imposed new sentences, taking into account the time Richardson had spent in custody on remand. The new sentences included six months imprisonment on the main charge and one month imprisonment on each of the remaining charges, to be served concurrently, along with special release conditions.

Orders