ROBERT LEONARD PICKERING AND THE KING

[2024] NZHC 3641

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000568

[2024] NZHC 3641

BETWEEN

ROBERT LEONARD PICKERING

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing:

2 December 2024

Counsel:

KR Borich for Appellant

LS Seybold for Respondent

Judgment:

2 December 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland. KR Borich, Auckland.

PICKERING v R [2024] NZHC 3641 [2 December 2024]

[1]    Robert Pickering pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary. The offending was serious. He and another burgled a gallery in Lorne Street, Auckland. Seventeen works of art were stolen. These were worth approximately $28,106.

[2]    Judge B A Gibson concluded Mr Pickering’s co-defendant was the primary offender. In relation to Mr Pickering, the Judge settled upon a term of nine months’ home detention with reparation of $28,106.1 Mr Pickering appeals that sentence.

[3]    This judgment can be brief for two reasons. First, it is not readily arguable the term of home detention is manifestly excessive or otherwise amenable  to  appeal. On behalf of Mr Pickering, Ms Borich observed a lesser term of home detention could have been imposed. That may be true, but sentencing is an art, not a science. It attracts a measure of discretion.

[4]    Second, it transpires Mr Pickering has no means to pay the reparation order. The Judge had no information about Mr Pickering’s means when he made the order. I have the benefit of that information. Mr Pickering does not have a job. He is on a benefit. This leaves him $289.85 per week. That being so, Mr Pickering cannot afford to pay reparation. It would have been open to Mr Pickering to contest this aspect by applying under s 38A of the Sentencing Act 2002. However, there is no reason the reparation order cannot be challenged on appeal.

[5]    Given all this, I allow the appeal insofar as reparation is concerned. I quash the reparation order.

[6]For completeness, the owner or owners of the gallery were insured.

……………………………..

Downs J

1      R v Pickering [2024] NZDC 24215.