Riddell v The Queen - [2017] NZHC 2612

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2017-409-000088 [2017] NZHC 2612

BETWEEN
RONALD DAVID RIDDELL

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 3 October 2017

Appearances:

S Teki-Clark for the Appellant
C White for the Respondent

Judgment:

25 October 2017

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] Mr Riddell was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, seven counts of burglary, one count of theft under $500, failure to stop for red and blue flashing lights, and possession of a cannabis pipe.

[2] He was sentenced by Judge MacAskill on 21 June 2017 to two years three months’ imprisonment, in respect of the lead burglary charge. Concurrent sentences on the remaining charges were imposed as follows: six months each on the six lesser burglary charges; and one month each on the theft of keys and possession of cannabis utensils charges. Various reparation orders were also made for losses incurred.

[3] Mr Riddell appeals against his sentence on two grounds:

RIDDELL v R [2017] NZHC 2612 [25 October 2017]

(a) that it was manifestly excessive (the starting point was too high, insufficient credit was given to police cooperation and mitigating factors, and co-offender sentence parity); and

(b)that the Judge erred by failing to impose home detention as the least restrictive option.

Jurisdiction and principles on appeal

[4] Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 requires that the appeal be allowed if I am satisfied that, for any reason, there is an error in the sentence imposed and a different sentence should be imposed.1 I must dismiss the appeal in any other case.2 To allow the appeal, I must be satisfied that the sentence imposed
was manifestly excessive.3 Whether a sentence is manifestly excessive is to be

examined in terms of the sentence given, rather than by the process by which the sentence is reached.4

District Court decision

[5] The Judge began by briefly describing the primary offending, which involved burglaries of numerous properties over a three-day period in January 2017. Of the $26,000 of property stolen or damaged, $20,000 was reflected in a single change, which was accordingly taken as the lead offending. The Judge then referred to the various matters which bear on sentence and starting points. He referred to Mr Riddell’s previous dishonesty convictions in the recent and relatively recent past. The Judge said that, as they had all resulted in community-based sentences of either community work or detention, it would not be appropriate to uplift, on this account, the starting point on the lead offending.

[6] The Judge noted that Mr Riddell’s counsel had suggested a co-offender, with respect to one of the burglaries, was the ringleader or mastermind of this spate of burglaries. He noted this co-offender had not been charged with other burglaries but
the Judge said he was dealing with Mr Riddell on the basis that it might have been

1      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
2      Section 250(3).
3      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279,

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 Riddell v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Riddell v The Queen [2017] NZHC 2612
Case: [2017] NZHC 2612
Decision Date: 25 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Riddell v The Queen, the High Court of New Zealand was asked to review a sentence imposed by the District Court. Ronald David Riddell was sentenced for multiple burglaries, theft, failure to stop for police, and possession of a cannabis pipe. The appeal challenged the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive and that the court should have considered home detention as a less restrictive option. The court reviewed the circumstances of the crimes, Riddell's cooperation with police, and the disparity between his sentence and that of his co-offender. The High Court found that the District Court's sentence was within the appropriate range and did not find any error in the sentencing process. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders