Solicitor-General v Beckham - [2015] NZHC 2816

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2015-488-29 [2015] NZHC 2816

BETWEEN
EDEN HOEY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 12 November 2015

Counsel:

T K Donald for the Appellant
C Anderson for the Respondent

Judgment:

12 November 2015

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

HOEY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 2816 [12 November 2015]

[1] Mr Hoey pleaded guilty to one charge of assault, two charges of driving while suspended (3rd or subsequent), one of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, one of possession of a weapon and two charges of breaching community work. He was sentenced by Judge Harvey in the District Court on 7 September 2015 to 17 months imprisonment.1 He was convicted and discharged on the two charges of breaching community work and was disqualified from driving for 12 months.

Factual background

[2] At about 9.00 pm on Saturday 29 November 2014, Mr Hoey and his then partner were at the address of one of his family members. The pair began arguing and Mr Hoey kicked her left thigh and then punched her two times in the back of her head. Other family members at the address separated the two and called the police. The victim did not suffer any injuries.

[3] On 22 January 2015, Mr Hoey was suspended for driving for a period of three months to 21 April 2015 inclusive, for accumulating in excess of 100 demerit points.

[4] On 17 April 2015, Mr Hoey drove while suspended. The vehicle was stopped for random breath testing. In explanation to the police, he stated that he thought he was no longer suspended. On the morning of 21 April 2015, Mr Hoey again drove while suspended. He knew that he was able to get his licence back the following day.

[5] On 26 June 2015, the police stopped a vehicle that had been stolen. Mr Hoey was located in that vehicle. He then tried to evade the police.

[6] On 24 July 2015, Mr Hoey was the passenger in a vehicle that was stopped

by police. The police located a machete down the side of the driver’s seat. Mr Hoey

admitted to being the owner of the machete.

1 Police v Hoey [2015] NZDC 17737.

District Court decision

[7] Judge Harvey canvassed the background facts of the offending. He recorded that Mr Hoey has a long list of previous convictions, including driving and violence related convictions and that he has not been particularly compliant with community- based sentences. The Judge noted that the pre-sentence report considered Mr Hoey to have a high risk of re-offending and a high risk of harm to others. The Judge had regard to a letter written by Mr Hoey and accepted that he wants to change.

[8] A starting point of six months imprisonment was adopted for the assault charge, reduced to five months imprisonment to take into account the late guilty plea.

[9] For the two driving while suspended charges, the Judge considered…

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 Solicitor-General v Beckham

Details

AGLC: Solicitor-General v Beckham [2015] NZHC 2816
Case: [2015] NZHC 2816
Decision Date: 12 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Eden Hoey appealed against his conviction and sentence imposed by the District Court. Mr Hoey had pleaded guilty to various charges including assault, driving while suspended, possession of a weapon, and breaching community work. He was sentenced to 17 months imprisonment, with some sentences being concurrent and others cumulative. Mr Hoey argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the seriousness of the offences. The Crown argued that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was within the range that could properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles.

The court considered the starting points for each group of offences, and whether they were appropriate. The court found that the starting points for the assault, possession of a weapon, and unlawful entry into a motor vehicle were appropriate. The court also found that the 12-month starting point for the driving while suspended charges was justified. The court then considered whether the end sentence of 17 months imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The court found that the end sentence, while stern, was not out of proportion to the gravity of the overall offending.

The court noted that there was an arithmetical error on the warrant of commitment, which recorded the sentences of imprisonment as totalling 18 months imprisonment. The court set aside the sentence imposed in the District Court and substituted in its place a sentence of 17 months imprisonment. The court also noted that the criminal history warranted recognition by an uplift, which if applied would extinguish the benefit to Mr Hoey of any reduction, as sought by him, to the sentences for the second and third group of offences.

The appeal was allowed, and Mr Hoey was sentenced to 17 months imprisonment.

Orders