Riddle v Police - [2020] NZHC 1706

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2020-443-12

[2020] NZHC 1706

BETWEEN
TERRANCE RIDDLE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 14 July 2020

Counsel:

K R Pascoe for Appellant G N Milne for Respondent

Judgment:

15 July 2020

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1] Mr Riddle appeals a final sentence of 13 months’ imprisonment imposed in relation to a number of charges.1

[2] There are two sets of charges. The first set involves two breaches of prison release conditions. The other set stems from what was initially a driving incident on 6 February 2020.

[3] The two charges of breach of prison release conditions involve different circumstances. In December Mr Riddle sought permission to attend a memorial service in Taranaki for a relative who had died in Australia. Permission was declined, but Mr Riddle went anyway. The second offence concerns breaches during the Covid- 19 lockdown. Arrangements were put in place that people required to report could do so by telephone. Mr Riddle failed to do so on three successive weeks. The summary

1 New Zealand Police v Riddle [2020] NZDC 9320.

RIDDLE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 1706 [15 July 2020]

to which he pleaded recorded that he had absconded and his present whereabouts were unknown.

[4] In relation to the second group of charges, on 6 February 2020, just before midnight, police activated their flashing lights in order to pull over the car Mr Riddle was driving. He did not stop and a chase ensued. It lasted 50 minutes, involved speeds up to 160 kph and ended only because Mr Riddle ran out of petrol. The road over which the chase occurred is a gorge road with narrow corners, blind spots and at one point a one-lane bridge.

[5]When arrested following the chase, Mr Riddle was found in possession of

0.8 grams of methamphetamine and a single bullet which was for use in a .44 Magnum pistol. Police believed Mr Riddle to be in an impaired condition, but he declined to give a blood sample.

[6] Mr Riddle pleaded guilty to all charges in circumstances that saw him receive the full guilty plea discount.

[7] Mr Riddle has a significant criminal record. He is 31 years of age. Since 2010 he has received 15 sentences of imprisonment in relation to 19 offences (not counting current offending). Prior to 2010, there was a steady diet of driving offending and lower-level violence and property offending. The most significant jail term is one of five years and three months’ imprisonment in 2014 for aggravated robbery. He was released from this sentence on 23 October 2019.

[8] Relevant to the present sentencing exercise, Mr Riddle has previously been convicted of a large number of driving offences including failing to stop, driving in a dangerous manner and drink driving. This offending stopped when he was jailed in 2014, but prior to that the driving offending was persistent and regular.

Sentencing

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 Riddle v Police

Details

AGLC: Riddle v Police [2020] NZHC 1706
Case: [2020] NZHC 1706
Decision Date: 15 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Mr Riddle appealed against his sentence of 13 months' imprisonment imposed in relation to multiple charges. These charges included two breaches of prison release conditions and various driving-related offences. The High Court of New Zealand considered the appeal and issued its judgment on 15 July 2020. The court examined the legal issues regarding the calculation of the starting point for sentencing, the uplift for previous breaches of court orders, and the overall total sentence. The court found that the starting point for the cumulative sentence was excessive and adjusted it downwards. It also determined that the uplift for previous breaches of court orders was disproportionately high, but ultimately appropriate given the circumstances. The court concluded that the original sentence was manifestly excessive and adjusted the final sentence to 10 months and two weeks, while maintaining the other sentences unchanged.

The court considered the various legal issues presented in the appeal, including the calculation of the starting point for sentencing and the imposition of an uplift for previous breaches of court orders. The court found that the starting point for the cumulative sentence was excessive, particularly in relation to the driving offences and the possession of methamphetamine. It also noted that the uplift for previous breaches of court orders was disproportionately high, but justified in the overall context of the case. The court applied its reasoning to adjust the final sentence to 10 months and two weeks, which it deemed appropriate given the circumstances. The court's judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal principles involved in sentencing and demonstrates the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and reflect the nature of the offending.

Orders