Sorenson v Police - [2017] NZHC 2499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE TIHI-Ō-MARU ROHE

CRI-2017-476-000009 [2017] NZHC 2499

BETWEEN
IAN GRANT SORENSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 10 October 2017

Appearances:

N Wham for the Appellant
A R McRae for the Crown

Judgment:

12 October 2017

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] Mr Sorenson is aged 55. He lives next door to his elderly parents in Timaru. In February 2000, a final protection order was issued against Mr Sorenson for the protection of his elderly father and his sister.

[2] On the evening of 8 June 2017, his sister was in the lounge with her parents at their home. Mr Sorenson had been drinking and was intoxicated. He went to the home. The summary of facts referred to there being a verbal argument between Mr Sorenson and his sister. She asked him to leave the property a number of times. While she was calling the Police, he attempted to grab her cell phone from her hand. He then punched her with a closed fist, hitting her in the mouth and nose. He started yelling at her, abused her and pulled her hair. The summary of facts said he was
unable to comment due to his extreme level of intoxication.

SORENSON v POLICE [2017] NZHC 2499 [12 October 2017]

[3] All this occurred just two weeks after Mr Sorenson had been released from prison for a sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment for breaching a protection order, assaults on family members and assault on a Police officer, committed on 24
December 2016.

[4] On 20 June 2017, Mr Sorenson pleaded guilty to two charges of breaching a protection order and one charge of assault. On the protection order breaches, he was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. On the assault, he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently. He appeals against both conviction and sentence.

Principles on appeal

[5] Section 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 governs appeals against conviction. This Court, as first appeal Court, must only grant an appeal against conviction if it is satisfied that a miscarriage of justice has occurred for any reason. A miscarriage of justice means any error, irregularity or occurrence in or in relation to or affecting the trial that either has created a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected or has resulted in an unfair trial or a trial that was a nullity.

[6] Section 250 governs appeals against sentence. The Court must only allow an appeal against sentence if satisfied that, for any reason, there is an error in the sentence imposed on conviction and a different sentence should be imposed.

Appeal against conviction

[7] Mr Sorenson appeals conviction on the basis that a miscarriage of justice occurred when he entered guilty pleas. He says such a miscarriage arises because, at the time he entered his guilty pleas, he did not understand the likely consequences of pleading guilty. It is also…

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 Sorenson v Police

Details

AGLC: Sorenson v Police [2017] NZHC 2499
Case: [2017] NZHC 2499
Decision Date: 12 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sorenson v Police involves an appeal by Ian Grant Sorenson against both his conviction and sentence. Sorenson was convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for two charges of breaching a protection order and one charge of assault. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Timaru Registry. Sorenson argued that he did not understand the likely consequences of pleading guilty and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court was required to decide whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred in relation to Sorenson’s guilty pleas and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court found that Sorenson had a history of convictions for breach of protection orders and assault, which demonstrated his awareness of the consequences of pleading guilty. The court noted that Sorenson had acknowledged his actions in letters he wrote to his parents and sister, and that he had discussed with his counsel whether to enter pleas of guilty or not guilty. The court found that Sorenson had not demonstrated that he did not understand what he was doing when he pleaded guilty or that there was any error in the trial process that would amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account Sorenson’s history of offending and the need for denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the victims. The court noted that Sorenson had been released from prison only 14 days before the current offending, and that the pre-sentence report had assessed his risk of reoffending and causing harm to third parties as being high.

The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed. The final orders were that the appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed and that Sorenson was to serve the sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment imposed by the Court of First Instance.

Orders