Street v The King - [2024] NZCA 643

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA328/2024
[2024] NZCA 643

BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER CHARLES STREET Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	7 November 2024
Court:	Ellis, Peters and Muir JJ
Counsel:	T D Clee for Appellant C P Howard and A L Chan for Respondent
Judgment:	6 December 2024 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Peters J)

Mr Street appeals against a decision of Judge Patel declining to discharge him without conviction on three offences, two of male assaults female and one of assault with intent to injure.[1] Absent success on that appeal, Mr Street appeals against his sentence.
[1]R v Street [2024] NZDC 12007 [judgment under appeal].
An appeal against a refusal to discharge a defendant without conviction, when a sentence appeal is advanced in the alternative, proceeds as an appeal against both conviction and sentence.[2]
[2]Jackson v R [2016] NZCA 627, (2016) 28 CRNZ 144 at [9].
An appeal against sentence must be allowed if the Court is satisfied there is an error in the sentence imposed, such that the sentence is manifestly excessive.[3] The Court must dismiss the appeal in any other case.

Background

[3]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250; and Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [32]–[35].

Mr Street committed the offending in 2021 against his then domestic partner. Mr Street pleaded guilty to the offending on the morning of his trial. We adopt the Judge’s description of the offending:[4]
[4]Judgment under appeal, above n 1.
[3]       You and [G] were in a relationship for about three and a half years, and you lived together for a period ... The relationship ended around February 2022.
[4]       On 17 April 2021, at about 1.15 pm you and [G] were at home, and you were arguing. You were standing next to a dresser. You picked up a bottle of conditioner and threw it at [G]. Fortunately, that missed her, and it hit the wall behind her. You grabbed [G] by the shoulder and pushed her up against the bedroom. You then you kneed her between the legs, and this caused her to fall to the ground. You then left the room. That forms the basis of the charge of male assaults female.
[5]       On 1 May 2021, at about 11 pm, you and [G] were at home. Again, you were arguing. You were sitting at a computer, and you yelled at [G]. She responded by getting up in your face and saying: “how do you like being screamed at?” You stood up, took [G] by the throat with your right hand and threw her into the corner of the room. This caused her to hit her head on the wall and she was dazed as a result. When [G] stood back up, you grabbed her by the throat with one hand and threw her into a…

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 Street v The King

Details

AGLC: Street v The King [2024] NZCA 643
Case: [2024] NZCA 643
Decision Date: 6 December 2024 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Street v The King, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence brought by Christopher Charles Street. The appeal stemmed from three convictions for offences against his former domestic partner, including two charges of male assaults female and one charge of assault with intent to injure. The first aspect of the appeal challenged the trial Judge's refusal to discharge Street without conviction, while the second aspect contested the sentence imposed.

The Court of Appeal first addressed the appeal against the refusal to discharge Street without conviction. The Court found that the Judge correctly assessed the gravity of the offending, considering factors such as the frequency of the assaults, the nature of the attacks, the victim's vulnerability, and the effects on the victim. The Court further held that the Judge appropriately evaluated the consequences of conviction, rejecting the argument that a conviction would significantly hinder Street's employment prospects in the insurance industry. The Court found no error in the Judge's decision to deny the application for a discharge without conviction.

Turning to the sentence appeal, the Court examined whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Street argued that the starting point of two years' imprisonment was too high and that a lower starting point should have been adopted. The Court acknowledged that the offending in Hansen v R, a case cited by the Judge, was more serious but concluded that the sentence imposed in the present case, which included substantial discounts, was not manifestly excessive. The Court found that the Judge appropriately balanced the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in arriving at the sentence.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence, upholding the trial Judge's decision.

Orders