Legal Research
Cases
Stridom v Police

Stridom v Police

Case [2019] NZHC 354 6 March 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2019-441-4

[2019] NZHC 354

BETWEEN
PIETER CONJE STRIDOM

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 5 March 2019

Appearances:

R D Stone for the Appellant C R Stuart for the Respondent

Judgment:

6 March 2019

Reissued:

12 March 2019

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1] On 23 January 2019 Mr Stridom was sentenced before Judge Adeane in the District Court at Hastings to two years one months’ imprisonment in respect of the following charges:1

(a)Two charges of burglary;2

(b)One charge of theft between $500–$1000;3

(c)One charge of receiving stolen goods over $1000;4

1      Police v Stridom [2018] NZDC 1108.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a) and s 66, maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 219 and 223(c), maximum penalty 1 years’ imprisonment.
4      Sections 246 and 247, maximum penalty 7 years’ imprisonment.

STRIDOM v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 354 [12 March 2019]

(d)One charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle;5

(e)One charge of driving while disqualified (third offence);6

(f)One charge of possession of methamphetamine pipes;7

(g)Two charges of using a document for pecuniary advantage;8

(h)One charge of possession of a knife in a public place.9

[2] Mr Stridom appeals his conviction on the grounds there were two mistakes in the District Court decision in relation to the sentence, and the appellate court is entitled to consider the sentence afresh. He argues that the end sentence was within the range of home detention, and that this is the sentence the Court should impose.

[3] The Police accept that mistakes were made in the District Court decision, but the mistakes were not material so as to justify a different sentence.

Factual background

[4] Mr Stridom is 30 years old and lives in Hastings. On 8 March 2018 he drove to Havelock North to meet his co-defendant, Ms Brown. Mr Stridom remained in the car while Ms Brown walked up the driveway at an address and climbed in through the open window, taking numerous items of value including jewellery and electronics, valued at approximately $20,000. Mr Stridom then drove Ms Brown back to her address, dropped her off and took the stolen goods with him to sell.

[5] On 13 March 2018 Ms Brown picked up Mr Stridom from his address in Hastings. They drove past an address where they saw the occupants leaving the house. Ms Brown parked the car at the end of the driveway. Both Ms Brown and Mr Stridom

5      Section 226(1), maximum penalty 7 years’ imprisonment.
6      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(4), maximum penalty 2 years’ imprisonment or
$6,000 fine.
7      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and (3), maximum penalty 1 years’ imprisonment or $500 fine.
8      Crimes Act 1961, s 228(b), maximum penalty 7 years’ imprisonment.
9      Section 202A(4)(a), maximum penalty 3 years’ imprisonment.

exited the car and approached the house. Ms Brown found an open window, reached in and unlocked the door. Once…

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 Stridom v Police

Details

AGLC: Stridom v Police [2019] NZHC 354
Case: [2019] NZHC 354
Decision Date: 6 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in this case was brought by Pieter Conje Stridom against his conviction and sentence imposed by the District Court. The District Court had sentenced Stridom to two years and one month’s imprisonment on multiple charges including burglary, theft, receiving stolen goods, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, driving while disqualified, possession of methamphetamine pipes, using a document for pecuniary advantage, and possession of a knife in a public place. Stridom appealed the sentence on the grounds that the District Court had made two mistakes in its sentencing decision and that the appellate court was entitled to consider the sentence afresh. Stridom argued that the end sentence was within the range of home detention, and that this was the sentence the Court should impose. The Police accepted that mistakes were made in the District Court decision but argued that the mistakes were not material so as to justify a different sentence. The High Court found that the District Court had made two errors in its sentencing decision, which resulted in a sentence higher than it should have been. The Court found that the starting point for the burglary charges should have been two years imprisonment, rather than the two and a half years used by the District Court. The Court also found that the reduction for time spent on electronic monitoring bail should have been five months, rather than the three months adopted by the District Court. The Court concluded that the end sentence should have been one year and 10 months’ imprisonment, rather than the two years and one month’s imprisonment imposed by the District Court. The Court found that the difference of three months was sufficient to show that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and ordered a sentence of nine months’ home detention in substitution for the sentence of two years and one month’s imprisonment. The Court also ordered that the reparation orders imposed by the District Court were to remain.

Orders