Richmond v Police - [2019] NZHC 2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI 2019-463-53

[2019] NZHC 2001

BETWEEN
BRADLEY VINCENT RICHMOND

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 6 August 2019

Appearances:

B Hall for Appellant

E Collis for Respondent

Result:

6 August 2019

Reasons:

15 August 2019

REASONS JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 August 2019 at 2.30 pm.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
C Tuck, Barrister, Tauranga Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

RICHMOND v NEW ZEALAND POLICE REASONS [2019] NZHC 2001 [6 August 2019]

[1] On 29 May 2019 in the Whakatāne District Court, Mr Richmond pleaded guilty to and was convicted of the following offences:1

(a)threatening to kill2

(b)dangerous driving3

(c)failing to stop for flashing blue and red lights4

(d)failing to answer court bail5

[2] On the lead offence of threatening to kill he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with lesser sentences of imprisonment being imposed concurrently for the remaining offences for which sentences of imprisonment are available.6 He was also disqualified from driving for 12 months on the charge of dangerous driving and for six months (to take effect on the expiry of the 12 months’ disqualification) on the charge of failing to stop for flashing red and blue lights.

[3] Mr Richmond appealed against the sentences of imprisonment and the length of the disqualification on the dangerous driving charge. Because he was refused bail pending the sentence appeal by the time the appeal was before me for hearing, on 6 August 2019, he had served just over two months of the sentence of imprisonment and was due for release on 29 August 2019.7 Because I was satisfied the appeal should be allowed I delivered a result judgment that day setting aside the sentences of imprisonment and imposing in their place sentences of 12 months’ intensive supervision and one months’ community detention, which took effect on

1      New Zealand Police v Richmond [2019] NZDC 10255.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 306.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b).
4      Land Transport Act 1998, s 52A(1)(a)(ii).
5      Bail Act 2000, s 24.
6      These were the dangerous driving and breach of bail offences. On the failing to stop for flashing red and blue lights offence he was convicted and disqualified from driving for the mandatory minimum period under s 52A(3) of the Land Transport Act 1998.
7      Six months’ imprisonment is a short-term sentence of imprisonment under s4(1) of the Parole Act 2002, which means that in accordance with s 86(1) of that Act the release date is the date on which an offender, who is subject to such sentence, has served half of it.

Mr Richmond’s release from prison.8 I also reduced the 12 months’ disqualification from driving to nine months’. My reasons for doing so now follow.

[4]The appeal was advanced on three grounds:

(a)the starting point reached on the threatening to kill charge was too high

(b)the sentence received on the charge of…

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 Richmond 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: [2019] NZHC 2001
Decision Date: 15 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bradley Vincent Richmond appealed against the sentences of imprisonment and the length of the disqualification imposed on him by the Whakatāne District Court. The appeal was heard on 6 August 2019 and the Court dismissed the appeal and substituted the sentences with 12 months' intensive supervision and one month community detention. Richmond was also disqualified from driving for nine months.

Richmond had been convicted of threatening to kill, dangerous driving, failing to stop for flashing blue and red lights, and failing to answer court bail. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment on the lead offence of threatening to kill and concurrent sentences of imprisonment for the other offences. The Court was satisfied that the appeal should be allowed and it dismissed the appeal and substituted the sentences with 12 months' intensive supervision and one month community detention. Richmond was also disqualified from driving for nine months.

The Court considered that the sentence that was otherwise appropriate was a short-term sentence of imprisonment. However, the Court found that the sentencing Judge had failed to consider a sentence of home detention. The Court found that a sentence of home detention was more appropriate and would have served the purposes of the Sentencing Act 2002 better than a sentence of imprisonment. However, the Court considered that a community-based sentence was more appropriate as Richmond had already served two months' imprisonment and was due for release. The Court considered that a sentence of 12 months' intensive supervision and one month community detention was the most appropriate sentence.

Orders