Mr Skipper was charged in the District Court with one count of aggravated burglary and one count of burglary simpliciter. At the conclusion of the Crown case, the aggravated burglary count was reduced to burglary simpliciter, and Mr Skipper then entered guilty pleas to both counts.
He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.[1]
[1] R v Skipper DC Christchurch CRI-2009-009-016793, 1 October 2010.
Mr Skipper now appeals that sentence on the grounds that the Judge’s starting point of four and a half years’ imprisonment was too high and that the Judge failed to have regard to the totality principle.

Factual background

On 11 October 2009 Mr Skipper and his co-offender, a Mr Maxwell, entered a residential property at 6.10 a.m. The property was situated in Barbadoes Street, Christchurch. It consisted of a single-level dwelling divided into two separate flats.
The two men, both aged in their 40s, broke into the rear flat. They stole bedding, a backpack, shoes and laundry powder, which they put into their car parked outside. The occupants of the rear flat were home at the time, but were unaware anyone had entered their property.
Mr Maxwell then knocked on the door of the front flat. The front flat was occupied by a Mr Murphy. When Mr Murphy opened the door, Mr Maxwell struck him on the head with a wooden baton. Mr Murphy fell to the ground and Mr Maxwell continued to beat him about the legs. Items were then taken from Mr Murphy’s flat, including clothing, a computer, a computer keyboard, a knife set, a backpack, several DVDs and some jewellery.
Fortuitously, while the two men were still removing items, a police patrol vehicle happened to pass by.
Police apprehended Mr Maxwell holding the keyboard. Mr Skipper fled the scene, but was located a short distance away. Most, but not all, of the stolen property was recovered.
At the time of the two burglaries, Mr Skipper was already on bail for three other dishonesty offences: burglary, theft, and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle. The unlawful taking offence had been committed in June 2009, the burglary and theft in August 2009 while he was on bail for the unlawful taking. For ease of reference, this judgment refers to all three offences collectively as “the August offences”.
Mr Skipper pleaded guilty to the August offences and was sentenced on 28 October 2009 to a term of imprisonment of 18 months.
The trial of the Barbadoes Street burglaries did not take place until early-September 2010.
At the close of the Crown case, Mr Maxwell pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary and burglary. As already…

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 R

Details

AGLC: Skipper v R [2011] NZCA 250
Case: [2011] NZCA 250
Decision Date: 3 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the New Zealand Court of Appeal, Floyd Kingi Skipper appeals his four-year sentence for two counts of burglary simpliciter. The Crown contends the appeal should be dismissed. The appeal concerns the appropriate starting point for sentencing and whether the totality principle should have been considered. The Barbadoes Street burglaries occurred while Skipper was on bail for three prior dishonesty offences, which were sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. The Crown case alleged that Skipper and an accomplice broke into a residential property, stealing items while the occupant was assaulted. The charges were reduced, and both offenders pleaded guilty. The District Court Judge sentenced Skipper to four years, a starting point of four years and a half for the lead offence, increased by six months for the second offence and six months for previous convictions, with a one-year discount for an early guilty plea. The appeal argues the starting point was too high, and the totality principle should have been applied. The Court of Appeal finds the starting point appropriate, and totality was not required as the second set of offences occurred while Skipper was on bail, were unrelated, and the first sentence had already been served. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders