Skipper v Police - [2012] NZHC 783

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2012-441-6 [2012] NZHC 783

MICHAEL MONTY SKIPPER
Appellant
v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 24 April 2012

Counsel: MJ Phelps for Appellant
CR Walker for Respondent

Judgment: 26 April 2012

JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 April 2012 at 4:20 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
MJ Phelps, Barrister, Snell AJS, Hastings: matt@snelllaw.co.nz
CR Walker, Elvidge & Partners, Napier: Clayton.Walker@elvidges.co.nz

SKIPPER V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC NAP CRI-2012-441-6 [26 April 2012]

[1] Michael Monty Skipper has appealed against an effective sentence of three years nine months' imprisonment imposed on him by Judge Rea in the District Court at Hastings on 1 February 2012, following his guilty pleas to two charges of burglary, three charges of interfering with a motor vehicle, one charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle and one charge under the Sentencing Act 2002 (“the Act”) of breaching release conditions.

[2] He also appeals against the imposition by the Judge, under s 86 of the Act, of a minimum period of imprisonment of two years four months.

Background

[3] The convictions arose from a spate of offending in late 2011. On one occasion, Mr Skipper forced his way through the rear window of a liquor store, using tools brought for the purpose. He took two bottles of whiskey and cartons of RTDs, before dropping the alcohol when he was seen by a member of the public.

[4] Later that morning he attempted to gain entry to a Honda vehicle by smashing the rear driver’s side window, fleeing the scene immediately but intending to return to steal the car.

[5] On another occasion, Mr Skipper forced his way into a school to which he had close connections, including being a former pupil, again using tools brought for the purpose. Once inside, he jemmied open a number of doors looking for electronic equipment. Laptops, computer screens, Apple iBooks and other computer equipment to the value of $40,000 were taken and more than $8,000 worth of damage was caused during the burglary. Mr Skipper then attempted to use a motor vehicle he found at the school to transport the stolen equipment away. The property was sold for $2,500.

[6] By any measure, this was a serious burglary which not only caused

considerable damage to the school’s property but also must have involved

considerable disruption through the loss of a considerable amount of computer equipment, and distress to the pupils.

[7] All of the offending was committed while the appellant was subject to prison release conditions, having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for aggravated robbery. The breach was the appellant’s failure to report to his probation officer as required.

[8] Although he initially denied involvement in any of the offending when apprehended by the Police, the appellant pleaded guilty to all charges at an early stage.

The District Court Judge’s approach to sentencing

[9] After setting out the facts…

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 Skipper v Police

Details

AGLC: Skipper v Police [2012] NZHC 783
Case: [2012] NZHC 783
Decision Date: 26 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael Monty Skipper appealed against the effective sentence of three years nine months' imprisonment, and the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment of two years four months, imposed by Judge Rea in the District Court at Hastings following his guilty pleas to various charges. The convictions arose from a series of burglaries and other criminal activities committed in late 2011, including a serious burglary of a school where valuable equipment was stolen, and considerable damage was caused. The appellant's criminal history included a persistent pattern of offending since March 2009, including aggravated robbery. The District Court Judge had imposed a global starting point of five years' imprisonment, and a 25% discount for early guilty pleas, resulting in the end sentence of three years and nine months' imprisonment for the lead charge, with concurrent sentences for the other charges. The Judge also imposed a minimum non-parole period of two years and four months under section 86 of the Sentencing Act 2002, citing the need for protection of the community and the seriousness of the offending. The appellant argued that the starting point was too high, that an unnecessary uplift was imposed, and that a minimum period of imprisonment should not have been imposed. The Crown submitted that the sentence was justified by the serious nature of the offending, the appellant's persistent criminal behaviour, and the need for accountability, denunciation, and deterrence. The Court found that the starting point of three years six months' imprisonment for the lead charge was appropriate, and that the global starting point of five years' imprisonment was justified by the seriousness of the offending overall. However, the Court held that the Judge erred in not taking account of the appellant's youth in determining the length of the minimum term. The Court varied the sentence by imposing a minimum period of imprisonment of one year 10 months.

Orders