Sullings v Police - [2017] NZHC 601

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2017-409-000014 [2017] NZHC 601

BETWEEN
FRAN PATRICIA SULLINGS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 28 March 2017

Appearances:

C M Yardley for Appellant
S J Mallett for Respondent

Judgment:

28 March 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] On 20 July 2016, the appellant was sentenced by Judge Kellar in the District Court to two years and one month imprisonment on one charge of burglary. The appellant appeals the sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive, considering what are said to be the unique circumstances of the offending here.

Facts

[2] On 8 April 2016, at about 6:30 p.m. the appellant entered the victim’s home while the victim was out. The appellant piled up food from the pantry and other various items into boxes. She drank Vodka and consumed ice-cream that the victim had in the house. Inexplicably she had also poured medication, used to treat the victim’s infant daughter who has Cystic Fibrosis, down the sink. She also went through wardrobes and bathrooms and removed other items from the house. The victim returned home around 10.00 pm to find the appellant in the house. The
victim, a young teenage mother, told her to leave. When the victim confronted the

SULLINGS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 601 [28 March 2017]

appellant, the appellant told the victim she would “Smash her” and then left the

address.

[3] The appellant seems to have been acting at the time under the influence of drugs and explained to the victim that she thought she was helping her grandfather pack up his house.

District Court decision

[4] Judge Kellar in the District Court considered that the two main aggravating circumstances of the appellant’s offending here were the sense of violation that comes from the burglary of someone’s home and the harm that has resulted, and the appellant’s numerous convictions for burglary and other dishonest offending. The Judge noted that Corrections assessed the appellant as being at high risk of reoffending. He considered here that the relevant applicable sentencing principles were the need to denounce and deter the offending, and to hold the appellant accountable for it. He highlighted the need to protect the community from a regular burglar. The Judge did note that the appellant had taken responsibility for the offending and expressed remorse for the harm caused to the victim

[5] In the District Court a starting point of two years and nine months’ imprisonment was adopted to reflect the overall seriousness of the offending, and the appellant’s previous dishonesty offending. Judge Kellar considered that the appellant’s entry of a guilty plea on her second appearance warranted full credit, or something near to it. This resulted in a sentence of two years and one month imprisonment.

[6] Finally, Judge Kellar noted that, even if the ultimate sentence had been shorter, a sentence of home detention would not have achieved the relevant sentencing objectives in this case.

Principles on appeal

[7]…

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 Sullings v Police

Details

AGLC: Sullings v Police [2017] NZHC 601
Case: [2017] NZHC 601
Decision Date: 28 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sullings v Police involves the appellant, Fran Patricia Sullings, who was sentenced to two years and one month imprisonment for a charge of burglary. The appellant appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive given the unique circumstances of the case. The court was required to decide whether the sentence was excessive and whether a different sentence should be imposed.

The court considered the arguments of both parties, including the unusual nature of the burglary and the appellant's extensive history of burglary and dishonesty offences. The court also took into account the starting point of two years and nine months' imprisonment, which was deemed appropriate by the respondent and agreed with by the court. The court concluded that the sentence was within the range available to the judge and that no error had occurred in the imposition of the sentence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The court noted that the appellant had a severe drug and alcohol dependency condition, and suggested that rehabilitation treatment and assistance be made available to her at an appropriate point. A copy of the judgment was to be made available to Community Corrections and the prison and probation authorities and the Parole Board.

Orders