Ryder v The Queen - [2005] NZCA 185

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA514/04
THE QUEEN
v
HORI TORU HUREI RYDER
Hearing:30 June 2005

Court:O'Regan, Baragwanath and Panckhurst JJ
Counsel:V C Nisbet for Appellant

R M Lithgow for Crown

Judgment:20 July 2005

JUDGMENT FOR THE COURT

AWe allow the appeal against sentence and quash the sentence imposed in the District Court. In its place, we impose a sentence of six years imprisonment on each of the 98 charges of burglary, those terms to be served concurrently, with a minimum non-parole period of four years.
B We impose a sentence of imprisonment for one year on the injuring charge and two months imprisonment on the assault charge, those sentences to be concurrent with each other, but cumulative on the six year term imposed for the burglary offences.
CThis makes a total sentence of seven years imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of four years.

REASONS
(Given by O’Regan J)
Introduction
[1]        Mr Ryder was sentenced in the District Court in regard to 98 charges of burglary, one charge of assault and another charge of injuring with intent to injure. He pleaded guilty to all of the charges. Judge Mackintosh sentenced him to ten years imprisonment, and a minimum period of imprisonment of two thirds of the sentence was imposed. Mr Ryder appeals against that sentence.
Facts
Palmerston North Burglaries
[2]        In mid-2004 Mr Ryder committed three burglaries in Palmerston North. In the first, he stole $467 in cash and took about $100 worth of Telecom phone cards from an apartment building. The second was the burglary of a church. He stole approximately $13,000 worth of computer and electronic equipment. The third involved stealing a laptop computer valued at $6,500 and some cash from a residential address. The goods taken in the second and third burglaries were sold to an associate for cash.
Wellington Burglaries
[3]        Between 30 August and 10 October 2004 Mr Ryder was actively committing burglaries in the Wellington region. The sentencing Judge observed that during that period there were a total of 272 reported burglaries in the Wellington area, of which Mr Ryder admitted responsibility for 95, that being 37% of the total burglaries for that period. The police summary of facts described Mr Ryder as a “one man crime wave”. The sentencing Judge said she tended to agree with that description.
[4]        Mr Ryder burgled both residential and commercial premises. The majority of offending took place during the day or in the early evening. He did not carry or use tools. He took time to “case out” prospective targets and would often visit premises to assess their viability and how susceptible they would be to his methods. Cash and laptop computers were Mr Ryder’s preferred targets, although on occasions he took jewellery, electronic games and larger electrical items and small items of clothing.
[5]        Mr Ryder’s burglaries were typically tidy and he was careful to ensure that he did not encounter occupants at their residential properties. However he typically did encounter…

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 Ryder v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ryder v The Queen [2005] NZCA 185
Case: [2005] NZCA 185
Decision Date: 20 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellant, Hori Toru Hurei Ryder, challenged the sentence imposed by the District Court. Mr Ryder was convicted of 98 charges of burglary, one charge of assault, and another charge of injuring with intent to injure. The appeal was directed solely at the sentence imposed. The central issue for the Court was whether the starting point and the total sentence imposed by the District Court was appropriate, given the nature and circumstances of the offending and the principles of sentencing.

The Court found that the starting point of 15 years for the burglary charges was too high, and instead determined that a starting point of around ten years was appropriate. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Court concluded that a sentence of six years imprisonment for the burglary offences was suitable. The Court also found that the sentences for the assault and injuring charges should be concurrent with each other but cumulative with the sentence for the burglary offences. A minimum non-parole period of four years was deemed appropriate to ensure the protection of the public.

As a result of the appeal, the Court quashed the original sentence and imposed a sentence of six years imprisonment for each of the 98 burglary charges, to be served concurrently, with a minimum non-parole period of four years. Additionally, the Court imposed a sentence of one year for the injuring charge and two months for the assault charge, to be served concurrently with each other but cumulative with the six-year term for the burglary offences. This results in a total sentence of seven years imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of four years.

Orders