Rigby v R - [2018] NZHC 478

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2017-416-22

[2018] NZHC 478

JAMMIE VERA RIGBY

v

THE QUEEN

Hearing: 6 March 2018

Appearances:

N Wright for Appellant

J E Mildenhall for Respondent

Judgment:

20 March 2018

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J

Introduction

[1] Jaime Vera Rigby pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary,1 three charges of dishonest use of a document,2 two charges of theft3 and one charge of failure to answer bail. On 5 October 2017 in the District Court in Gisborne Judge Cathcart sentenced Ms Rigby to two years and three months’ imprisonment.4 Ms Rigby appeals that sentence.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 228(1)(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 219 and 223; maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4      R v Rigby [2017] NZDC 24297.

RIGBY v R [2018] NZHC 478 [20 March 2018]

Facts of the offending

[2] The first burglary occurred sometime between 8:15am on 24 August 2016 and 11:00pm on 25 August 2016. Ms Rigby entered a private dwelling in Napier through the bedroom window, leaving her fingerprints on the window sill. She took jewellery estimated to have a value of $15,000 and other items including clothing, a pair of shoes, and a watch, collectively valued at approximately $1000. Ms Rigby originally claimed she was a lookout but retracted that and pleaded guilty on the basis she was a party.

[3] Between 29 August 2016 and 3 September 2016 Ms Rigby used two stolen credit cards to make a number of purchases totalling $1792.40. On 3 September 2016 Ms Rigby was in a casino at a Napier hotel. She removed a wallet from a man’s back pocket. When he realised what had happened and demanded the return of his wallet,
$100 cash was missing.

[4] The second burglary occurred on the afternoon of 24 October 2016. Ms Rigby and two co-defendants entered a private address in Gisborne. They parked their car in front of the garage. One co-defendant stayed as a lookout. Ms Rigby and a co- defendant entered the property and returned with a number of pairs of shoes. They then re-entered the home. The occupiers of the property arrived home and confronted them. Ms Rigby and her co-defendant fled. At this time Ms Rigby was on bail for her earlier offending.

District Court decision

[5] Judge Cathcart dismissed a starting point of between 15 to 18 months proposed by Ms Rigby as “woefully inadequate”.5 After considering the aggravating features and relevant principles Judge Cathcart determined the appropriate starting point for the two dwelling house burglaries was two years and seven months’ imprisonment. “The facts [spoke] for themselves”: The offending involved two dwelling house burglaries “in the early hours”; the aggravating risk of confrontation with the occupiers during the October burglary; and involvement of more than one offender in the

5 At [9].

October burglary.6 The Judge took Ms Rigby’s plea as a party to the August…

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 Rigby v R

Details

AGLC: Rigby v R [2018] NZHC 478
Case: [2018] NZHC 478
Decision Date: 20 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Jammie Vera Rigby appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court for multiple charges including burglary, dishonest use of a document, theft, and failure to answer bail. Rigby's appeal focused on the starting point of her sentence, the credit given for time spent on electronically monitored bail, and the consideration of her personal circumstances. The court had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and if the sentencing judge had erred in his discretion. The High Court assessed the starting point and adjustments made by the District Court, finding that a starting point of two years and four months was more appropriate than the two years and seven months given. The Court also considered the psychiatric report and concluded that a reduction was warranted for Rigby's prospects of rehabilitation. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, reducing Rigby's sentence to one year and ten months' imprisonment, and made an order for Rigby to apply for a sentence of home detention if a suitable residence became available.

Orders