Legal Research
Cases
Smith v Police

Smith v Police

Case [2024] NZHC 858 30 April 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2024-288-000011

[2024] NZHC 858

PETER SMITH

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

First Respondent

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Second Respondent

Hearing: 16 April 2024

Appearances:

J A Young for the Appellant

A J Goodwin for the First Respondent
No appearances for the Second Respondent

Judgment:

30 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

Appeal

Solicitors/Counsel:
J Young, Whangarei
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith (Office of Crown Solicitor) Whangarei

SMITH v POLICE [2024] NZHC 858

[1] Mr Smith was sentenced to 23 months’ imprisonment for breach of protection order. He was also sentenced to 12 months for assault of a person with whom you were in a family relationship and six months for breach of release conditions, to be served at the same time as the lead sentence. He appeals the sentence as manifestly excessive.

Facts of offending

[2] On 16 November 2023, Mr Smith was at home with his partner. He had been consuming alcohol and knocked their dinner off the table. An argument followed with the victim, who then rang the Police. Mr Smith was heard yelling, “You want to fuck with me”, “I’m going to crush your fucking head”, “Who do you think you are?”, “I am going to destroy you”. The victim then went into the bedroom and tried to hold the door closed. Mr Smith forced his way inside the bedroom causing the victim to fall over. The victim sat on the ground in a foetal position covering her head and face with her arms and knees. Mr Smith stood over the victim and hurt her multiple times to the face and head. He also kicked her right leg. The victim was left bleeding from her mouth and nose and had visible swelling to her forehead and to the back of her head. She had a large red mark on her right calf.

[3] In terms of breach of release conditions, on 7 December 2021, Mr Smith was sentenced to four years and four months’ imprisonment following conviction for wounding with intent to cause to grievous bodily harm and injuring with intent to injure. He was released on 20 February 2023 on standard and special conditions including his condition not to possess, use, or consume alcohol or drugs and the consequences of non-compliance. On 16 November 2023, Mr Smith breached a condition of his parole in that he consumed alcohol while subject to a special condition not to possess, use or consume alcohol or drugs.

Mr Smith

[4] Mr Smith was one of 18 siblings, brought up in his early years in a three- bedroom house in Wairoa. Domestic violence was normalised in the home, with his mother regularly beaten, his father regularly in fights with other men and his father

regularly beating him. Alcohol abuse was rife, with both parents often drinking until they were comatose. CYFS and truancy support were in their lives all the time, Mr Smith gravitated to drugs…

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 Smith v Police

Details

AGLC: Smith v Police [2024] NZHC 858
Case: [2024] NZHC 858
Decision Date: 30 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peter Smith appeals his sentence for breach of a protection order, assault on a family member, and breach of release conditions, arguing that it is manifestly excessive. The court considers whether the starting point and discounts applied by the District Court were appropriate. The court finds that the starting point of 30 months was excessive and that a starting point of 22 months is appropriate. The court also finds that the discount for background factors was too small, and that a 15 per cent discount is warranted. The court imposes a sentence of 18 months on the lead charge of breach of the protection order, allowing the appeal and quashing the original sentence of 23 months. The remaining sentences remain unaffected.

Orders