Legal Research
Cases
Sinclair v Police

Sinclair v Police

Case [2020] NZHC 3091 23 November 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2020-409-000062

[2020] NZHC 3091

BETWEEN
MATT DYLAN SINCLAIR

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE AND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondents

Hearing: 18 November 2020

Appearances:

C G Nolan for Appellant

P N M Brown for Respondents

Judgment:

23 November 2020

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 November 2020 at 10.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date…23 November 2020

Introduction

[1] On 21 April 2020 Judge Garland sentenced Matt Sinclair to three years and four months’ imprisonment on a number of charges: one of burglary, 10 of theft, two of dishonest use of a document, one of attempted dishonest use of a document, three of intentional damage, two of breach of District Court bail and one of breaching his

SINCLAIR v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 3091 [23 November 2020]

release conditions.1 He appeals his sentence on the basis it is manifestly excessive because the Judge’s uplift for previous convictions was too high, and the Judge wrongly declined to make any discounts for addiction, deprivation and remorse.

Facts

[2] The ten theft charges relate to thefts between 17 February 2019 and 21 December 2019. Mr Sinclair stole petrol, liquor and beer, clothing, and electrical equipment from nine different businesses and two individuals. The value of the items stolen was over $10,000.

[3] Mr Sinclair was convicted for the dishonest use of a document charges and attempted dishonest use of a document charges between 5 March 2019 and 10 July 2019. In this period on three separate occasions he broke into unattended cars and stole either bank or petrol cards which he used or attempted to use to purchase petrol.

[4] The two charges of breaching District Court bail and one of breaching his release condition relate to Mr Sinclair’s failure to answer district Court bail on both 5 June 2019, and 1 November 2019 and his failure to report to the Parole Board on 6 June 2019 as required as a condition of his release on a previous burglary charge.

[5] The intentional damage charges relate to an incident on 18 March 2019 when a police patrol car spotted Mr Sinclair in Timaru standing next to a car that they ascertained had false plates. When the police approached the car Mr Sinclair entered the front passenger seat of the vehicle and his associate drove away. The police activated their red and blue flashing lights, but Mr Sinclair’s vehicle sped away. The patrol car pursued the vehicle and in an attempt to stop the patrol car Mr Sinclair threw Z nails onto the road at an intersection. The Z nails punctured two of the patrol car’s tyres and two other road users suffered tyre punctures.

[6] The burglary charge was committed on 26 December 2019. In the late afternoon Mr Sinclair climbed over a fence into the rear courtyard of a clothing store

1

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 Sinclair v Police

Details

AGLC: Sinclair v Police [2020] NZHC 3091
Case: [2020] NZHC 3091
Decision Date: 23 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sinclair v Police involves an appeal by Matt Dylan Sinclair against his sentence of three years and four months' imprisonment, imposed by Judge Garland. Sinclair was convicted on multiple charges including burglary, theft, dishonest use of a document, intentional damage, and breaches of bail and release conditions. Sinclair argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive due to an overly high uplift for his previous convictions and the failure to discount for addiction, deprivation, and remorse. The High Court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and justified by accepted sentencing principles.

The Court considered the starting point and uplift for previous convictions, concluding that the uplift of 12 months for previous convictions, representing a 28 per cent increase, was within the range of acceptable uplifts given Sinclair's significant history of burglary and dishonesty offences. The Court noted that while the uplift should not be excessive, previous convictions remain relevant in assessing culpability, particularly in cases of recidivist offenders. Regarding personal mitigating factors, the Court found that a 10 per cent discount for addiction and deprivation was warranted, though it did not consider a separate discount for remorse due to the lack of evidence of genuine remorse. The Court also noted that the discount for the guilty plea, at 33 per cent, was particularly generous and beyond the acceptable range. Ultimately, the Court determined that the overall sentence, after applying the appropriate uplifts and discounts, was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The Court's judgment highlights the importance of proportionality and the consideration of all relevant factors in sentencing, while affirming the trial judge's discretion in balancing these factors.

Orders