Standing v Police - [2020] NZHC 2111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2020-443-17

CRI-2020-443-18 [2020] NZHC 2111

BETWEEN
TERRENCE LEWIS STANDING

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 18 August 2020

Counsel:

P J Mooney for appellant J E Bourke for respondent

Judgment:

20 August 2020

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

[1] The appellant (Mr Standing) was sentenced by Judge Greig in the New Plymouth District Court on 25 May 2020 to terms of imprisonment totalling 17 months.1 The sentencing was for two convictions for offering to supply a class A drug, two convictions for failing to appear in court and two convictions for breach of supervision. The sentencing also included a re-sentencing on two convictions for theft.

[2] Mr Standing seeks to appeal the sentences imposed on the ground that they were manifestly excessive.

[3] Mr Standing also seeks leave to bring his appeal out of time. It appears that he signed the appropriate notice of appeal sufficiently promptly for it to have been filed

1 Police v Standing [2020] NZDC 9344.

STANDING v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 2111 [20 August 2020]

in a timely way, but receipt in his lawyer’s office was delayed for some period and then filing was not attended to by his lawyer as a result of an oversight within that office.

[4] In those circumstances, and given the absence of objection by, or claim of any prejudice to, the respondent, leave is granted for the appeal to be brought out of time.

Factual background and Mr Standing’s personal circumstances

[5] In January 2019, Mr Standing resided in hostel-type accommodation in New Plymouth and paid for the accommodation by helping with cleaning and other tasks at the property. His work responsibilities at the hostel gave him access to a locked shed where mountain bikes were stored for hiring to guests at the hostel. During January 2019, Mr Standing took two mountain bikes from the locked shed and sold them to a used goods dealer. On 21 March 2019, Mr Standing was sentenced to a year’s supervision on those two theft charges.

[6] Between 6 June and 4 July 2019, Mr Standing breached the supervision sentence by failing to report to his Probation officer, and he faced the same charge for the period between 4 July 2019 and 23 January 2020. Given the Probation officer’s difficulties in locating Mr Standing during this period, a warrant was issued for his arrest in July 2019, and after he was arrested on that warrant he was released on bail but failed to appear in court in October 2019.

[7] On 12 December 2019, Mr Standing attempted to flee from Police when they arrived at an address on a matter unrelated to him, and when bailed on that occasion he again failed to appear in court. Enquiries revealed that Mr Standing had made offers to supply methamphetamine on two occasions. The first was for a quarter of a gram, to the occupier of…

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 Standing v Police

Details

AGLC: Standing v Police [2020] NZHC 2111
Case: [2020] NZHC 2111
Decision Date: 20 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Terrence Lewis Standing, appealed against sentences imposed by Judge Greig in the New Plymouth District Court. The sentences related to two convictions for offering to supply a class A drug, two convictions for failing to appear in court, two convictions for breach of supervision, and a re-sentencing on two convictions for theft. The appeal was based on the argument that the sentences were manifestly excessive. The court granted leave for the appeal to be brought out of time due to an oversight by the appellant’s lawyer. The court examined the starting points for each component of the sentence and found that the starting points for the drug charges should be reduced from 12 months to eight months. The court found that a single sentence should have been imposed for the breach of supervision charges, and reduced the sentence from two and a half months to one and a half months. The court found that the re-sentencing for the theft charges was within the range available to the Judge. The court found that an uplift for previous convictions was not warranted, and that the starting points for the failures to appear were appropriate. The court undertook a totality analysis and found that the appropriate starting points for each component of the sentence should be reduced, resulting in an end sentence of 12 months. The appeal was allowed, and the sentences imposed in the District Court were substituted with cumulative sentences of imprisonment.

Orders