Ryland v Police - [2023] NZHC 2100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-000274

[2023] NZHC 2100

BETWEEN
MATTHEW RYLAND

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 8 August 2023

Appearances:

K R Borich for Appellant H F Brown for Respondent

Judgment:

8 August 2023

REASONS JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

[appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 August 2023 at 3:30 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………..

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service, Waitakere Crown Solicitor, Auckland

RYLAND v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2100 [8 August 2023]

[1] On 19 May 2023, Matthew Ryland was sentenced by Judge L Tremewan in the District Court at Waitakere to nine months’ supervision after pleading guilty to one charge of being unlawfully on a property.1 Mr Ryland appeals that sentence on the basis that it was disproportionate to his offending and based on an erroneous finding by the Judge that he had a continuing issue with alcohol.

[2] The Police submit that it is unclear whether there was jurisdiction to impose the order for supervision. They suggest that an appropriate sentence may be an order to come up for sentence if called upon.

[3] At the hearing on 8 August 2023, I quashed the sentence of supervision and ordered that Mr Ryland come up for sentence if called upon within six months of the date of this decision. This judgment sets out the reasons for my decision.

The offending

[4] At around 9:45 pm on 11 October 2022, Mr Ryland entered a property on the Te Atatu Peninsula in Auckland. He walked onto the deck and up to a table and left with a pair of running shoes worth $100.

[5] When arrested on 3 March 2023, Mr Ryland told Police the location of the shoes which were subsequently seized. Mr Ryland said he did not remember the incident because he was drunk.

Sentencing decision

[6] The Judge’s sentencing notes were brief. The Judge said that Mr Ryland’s sentence would be for nine months’ supervision with a probation officer and ordered that Mr Ryland undertake any assessment, course, programme, counselling, or treatment as directed for alcohol issues or any other issue. The Judge said that this was designed to give Mr Ryland support and oversight. The Judge expressed the hope Mr Ryland would see it as an opportunity. It was not imposed as punishment, but to help Mr Ryland by encouraging him to carry on making better choices as the Judge said she had heard that he had since tried to do.

1 Police v Ryland [2023] NZDC 12452.

Approach on appeal

[7] An appeal against a sentence is an appeal against a discretion. Section 250(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA) provides that the Court must allow an appeal against sentence if it is satisfied that, for any reason, there was an error in the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed. In any other case, it must dismiss the appeal.2 Section…

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 Ryland v Police

Details

AGLC: Ryland v Police [2023] NZHC 2100
Case: [2023] NZHC 2100
Decision Date: 8 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Ryland appeals against his nine-month supervision sentence imposed by the District Court for unlawfully entering a property. The appeal focuses on the sentence's proportionality and the basis for the Judge's finding of a continuing alcohol issue. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the District Court erred in imposing the supervision order and whether a different sentence should be imposed. The court considered whether the supervision order was justified under the Sentencing Act 2002, particularly whether it would reduce the likelihood of further offending through rehabilitation and reintegration, and whether the special conditions imposed were necessary. The court found that the Judge did not adequately consider the requirements for imposing a supervision order, nor did she consider whether the special conditions were necessary. The court accepted that the sentence was not the least restrictive outcome that could have been appropriate in the circumstances.

The High Court quashed the sentence of supervision and ordered that Ryland come up for sentence if called upon within six months of the date of this judgment, by 8 February 2024. The Court was satisfied that the original sentence was disproportionate to Ryland’s offending and that there was insufficient evidence to support the Judge’s finding of a continuing alcohol issue. The Court also found that the supervision order, with its significant imposition on personal liberty, was not the least restrictive outcome that could have been appropriate in the circumstances. The Court acknowledged that Ryland’s offending was at the lower end of the scale, his last conviction was three years prior, and he had been without incident since the offending. Additionally, Ryland had recently started studying Land Surveying. The Court concluded that a sentence of supervision was not justified and that an order for Ryland to come up for sentence if called upon was a more appropriate outcome.

Orders