Silcock v Police - [2014] NZHC 1515

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-000129 [2014] NZHC 1515

BETWEEN
GUY CAMPBELL SILCOCK

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 1 July 2014

Appearances:

M B Mortimer for Appellant
A R Longdill for Respondent

Judgment:

1 July 2014

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Copy to: M Mortimer, Auckland

SILCOCK v NZ POLICE [2014] NZHC 1515 [1 July 2014]

[1] On 16 May 2014 Guy Silcock was sentenced to imprisonment for three years.1 Judge Roy Wade imposed the sentence in the District Court at North Shore in relation to 23 charges of either causing a loss or obtaining money by false pretences. Mr Silcock appeals against the sentence.

[2] I take the summary of the offending from the Judge’s sentencing notes. One set of offending related to Mr Silcock’s activities as a self-employed paving contractor. He advertised his services in free local newspapers using a variety of different names. When prospective customers responded to the advertisement by telephoning the number he would turn up at the addresses almost immediately. Mr Silcock would tell the customers that a substantial contract he had entered had been cancelled just a few days before. He had workmen standing idle and was prepared to do the work at a very attractive and competitive price and to do it immediately. Having quoted a price and having had it accepted Mr Silcock then sought a down payment of approximately half the total contract price to cover the alleged cost of the purchase of materials. The down payment was required in cash. If the customers did not have sufficient cash upon them, as was often the case, Mr Silcock would ask for a cheque to be made out for cash or he would offer to meet the customer or take them to an ATM machine to withdraw the cash. In some instances Mr Silcock took cash cheques to banks at shopping malls and the like that were open on the weekends to ensure the cash was taken out immediately. Despite a number of promises about the work Mr Silcock failed to attend and complete the work.

[3] There was also another set of offending in relation to a number of hardware stores situated throughout Auckland. That offending took place in March 2012. In those cases, on each occasion, Mr Silcock purchased expensive power tools which were paid for with cheques which he knew would be dishonoured upon presentation. Having obtained the power tools, he then took them to a variety of second-hand and pawn shops and sold them for cash.

[4] In total the value of the losses occasioned by Mr Silcock’s actions amounted

to $29,765, although in his sentencing notes the Judge refers to the sum of $26,763.

After sentencing it was agreed that that figure was incorrect and the order for reparation was adjusted to reflect the total sum lost of $29,765.

[5] The first offence was committed between 10 and 14 September 2009; the second offence between October…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Silcock v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 1515
Decision Date: 1 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Guy Campbell Silcock appeals against a sentence of imprisonment for three years imposed by Judge Roy Wade for 23 charges of either causing a loss or obtaining money by false pretences. The offending involved Mr Silcock posing as a paving contractor and tricking customers into providing cash down payments for services that were never rendered. He also obtained expensive power tools from hardware stores using cheques he knew would be dishonoured. The total losses amounted to $29,765. Mr Silcock argues that the sentence is manifestly excessive, primarily because the starting point was too high and the uplift for offending whilst on bail was excessive. He further argues that the Judge failed to give credit for relevant considerations as he was required to do by the Sentencing Act 2002.

The court considered the nature of the offending, its magnitude and sophistication, the type, circumstances and number of the victims, the motivation for the offending, the amounts involved, the losses, the period over which the offending occurred, the seriousness of breaches of trust involved, and the impact on victims. The court held that the starting point of three years was not out of range, and the uplift of one year for offending whilst on bail was justified. However, the court found that the Judge was incorrect to reject mitigating factors. Specifically, the court found that the Judge should have provided a discount for the guilty pleas that were entered and should have taken into account the personal circumstances of Mr Silcock. The court allowed an adjustment of two to three months for the personal circumstances and guilty plea, resulting in a sentence of two years, six months imprisonment.

The appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence of three years imprisonment is quashed and set aside. It is replaced with a sentence of two years, six months imprisonment. The sentences are to run concurrently in accordance with the provisions of the Crimes Act in relation to the other offending.

Orders