Stone v R - [2016] NZHC 1289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-409-000026 [2016] NZHC 1289

BETWEEN
MICHAEL RAYMOND WILLIAM

STONE Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

CRI-2016-409-000027

BETWEEN MICHAEL RAYMOND WILLIAM STONE
Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 14 June 2016

Appearances:

R M Buddicom for Appellant
A M Toohey for Respondent

Judgment:

14 June 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

[1] Having pleaded guilty to charges of: (a) arson;1
(b) obtaining by deception;2

(c) attempting to obtain by deception;3

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 267(1)(c) and 66.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 240(4)(a) and 66.
3      Crimes Act 1961, ss 240(1A) and 66.

STONE v THE QUEEN [2016] NZHC 1289 [14 June 2016]

(e) possession of a pipe,5

on 9 March 2016 the appellant Michael Raymond William Stone was sentenced by Judge Kellar in the District Court to two years and 10 months’ imprisonment.6 It is this sentence that is now under appeal.

Background

Factual background

[2] Mr Stone, his partner Ms Menner, and an associate Mr Clark, lived at and were tenants at a Housing New Zealand property at Ruru Road, Christchurch. On
17 January 2015, in response to alleged threats to their safety, Mr Stone and his co- defendants, including a fourth associate, devised an ill-conceived plan to set fire to the house. In preparation the accomplices drove to Timaru and booked a motel.

[3] In the early hours of the following morning, Mr Stone and two of his co- defendants, Mr Clark and Mr McGoverin returned to Christchurch. On the way they stopped in at the BP Rolleston petrol station and filled a petrol can with petrol. On arriving at the property Mr Stone and Mr Clark went into the house while Mr McGoverin drove the car around the block.7 Once the house was alight, Mr McGoverin picked up Mr Stone and Mr Clark and the three returned to Timaru. Neighbours discovered the fire and called the fire service. The house was extensively damaged however with costs of repairs assessed in the region of
$150,000.

[4] Ten days prior to the arson, Mr Stone and Ms Menner had taken out an insurance policy covering $95,000 worth of their contents. They subsequently made an insurance claim for loss of contents. The insurance company provided an instant
$1,000 emergency payout. Mr Stone and Ms Menner both made statements to the

4      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a).
5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and (3).
6      R v Stone [2016] NZDC 4076.
7      There was a dispute between Mr Stone and Mr Clark about the roles that each played, however it was agreed that they were both principal and equally culpable offenders in the offending.

insurance investigator denying any knowledge of the fire. However, the insurance claim came to an end after they admitted the offending.

[5] On 12 November 2015 while on bail for the above offending Mr Stone and Ms Menner went to a residential property under construction in the Wigram area. Ms Menner climbed into the roof…

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 Stone v R

Details

AGLC: Stone v R [2016] NZHC 1289
Case: [2016] NZHC 1289
Decision Date: 14 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael Raymond William Stone has appealed his sentence of two years and 10 months’ imprisonment, imposed by the District Court for various criminal offences. The appeal was heard by Gendall J in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry. Stone's primary contentions were that the sentence disparity between him and his co-offender, Mr Clark, was unjustified and that the uplift for the burglary and possession of a pipe offence was excessive. Stone and Clark were found to be equally culpable in the arson offence, but Clark received a 30 per cent discount for his assistance to the prosecution. Stone argued that he should have received a similar discount.

The court examined the principles of parity in sentencing and noted that while parity is desirable, it is not always achievable due to the unique circumstances of each case. The court held that Clark's discount for assistance was not excessive, and the disparity in sentences did not amount to an unjustifiable or gross departure from accepted sentencing levels. Regarding the burglary uplift, the court found that the nine-month uplift was justified given the circumstances, including the fact that the offence was committed while Stone was on bail for other offences.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed as the court found no grounds to interfere with the original sentence imposed by the District Court. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice, while also acknowledging the need for flexibility in sentencing to accommodate the unique circumstances of each case.

Orders