Stretch v Police - [2016] NZHC 1713

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-000176 [2016] NZHC 1713

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against sentence

BETWEEN

WARREN RICHARD STRETCH Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 25 July 2016

Counsel:

T Massyn for the Appellant
S A Wilson for the Respondent

Judgment:

27 July 2016

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Edwards on 27 July 2016 at 11.00 am, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors: Public Defence Service, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Auckland

STRETCH v POLICE [2016] NZHC 1713 [27 July 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Stretch appeals against his sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment for charges primarily relating to violent offending against four children in his care.1 He appeals on the grounds that the end sentence was manifestly excessive; that cumulative sentences were inappropriately imposed; and the Judge failed to take into account mitigating factors.

Background

[2] Mr Stretch pleaded guilty to 18 charges relating to offending against four children (T, C, A and D) aged between five and 13 at the time of the offending. The charges were:

(a) Two charges of injuring with intent to injure, both against T;2

(b) Nine charges of assault against a child: one against T, four against C;

three against A and one against D;3

(c) Four charges of assault with a weapon; two against C and two against

A;4

(d) One charge of assault with intent to injure relating to D; and5

(e) Two charges of supplying cannabis to T and C.6

[3] The four victims were the children of a family member. Mr Stretch and his wife took custody of them in May 2009, and the offending occurred between
May 2010 and August 2014.

1      Police v Stretch [2016] NZDC 7864.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, s 194(a); maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act, s 202C; maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act, s 193; maximum penalty three years imprisonment.
6      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(d); maximum penalty, eight years’ imprisonment.

Offending against T

[4] The first charge of injuring with intent to injure occurred at some point between 1 April 2014 and 1 June 2014. Mr Stretch started yelling at T after learning that she had been missing school. T went to stand behind Mr Stretch’s wife. Mr Stretch stepped towards T and punched her in the side of the head with a closed fist, causing her head to hit the wall. He then punched her in the nose with a closed fist, causing blood to splatter up the wall behind her. A family member intervened and took T into the bathroom. The assault caused a bloody nose and bruising to T’s lips.

[5] The second charge of injuring with intent to injure occurred at some point between 4 July 2014 and 21 July 2014. Mr Stretch threw T against the wall and then punched her twice…

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 Stretch v Police

Details

AGLC: Stretch v Police [2016] NZHC 1713
Case: [2016] NZHC 1713
Decision Date: 27 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Warren Richard Stretch, who appeals his sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment for multiple charges of violent offending against four children in his care. The charges include injuring with intent, assault against a child, assault with a weapon, and supplying cannabis. Stretch argues that the sentence was manifestly excessive, cumulative sentences were improperly imposed, and mitigating factors were not adequately considered. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the District Court and determining whether it was materially erroneous.

The primary legal issues were whether the starting point for the sentence was appropriate, whether the cumulative sentences were justified, and if the District Court adequately considered mitigating factors. The court considered whether the Judge's approach to sentencing was in error and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. It also examined if the Judge failed to appropriately account for mitigating factors such as Stretch's participation in a Family Violence Court program, strict bail conditions, and his desire to attend a restorative justice process.

The court found that the Judge's approach to setting a starting point for the sentence was appropriate, particularly given the nature and extent of the offending against each victim. It noted that cumulative sentences were justified in cases involving multiple victims and different acts of family violence. The court held that the starting point and uplift for the offences against each victim were within the appropriate range, considering the aggravating factors involved. Regarding mitigating factors, the court found no material error in the Judge's application of discounts for remorse and personal circumstances, including Stretch’s participation in counselling programs and his strict bail conditions. The Judge’s sentence, after applying appropriate discounts and considering the totality of the offending, was deemed proportionate and within the range of an appropriate sentence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the District Court was upheld. The court concluded that the end sentence reached was not manifestly excessive and there was no basis to interfere with it.

Orders