Sunnex v Police - [2019] NZHC 2589

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2019-409-000097

[2019] NZHC 2589

BETWEEN
ETHAN PETER SUNNEX

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 October 2019

Appearances:

D J H Stringer for Appellant S Dayal for Respondent

Judgment:

11 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 October 2019 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date 11 October 2019

Introduction

[1] Mr Sunnex was convicted of five charges of dishonestly using a document, and charges of receiving a vehicle, theft from a vehicle, and burglary. He was sentenced by Judge Garland to two years and five months in the District Court on 28 June 2019. He appeals against that sentence.

SUNNEX v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2589 [11 October 2019]

Facts

[2] Between 27 July and 3 October 2018, the appellant was employed by Concrete Brothers Ltd. During his employment, the appellant had access to a work vehicle and an NPD fuel card. Following an acrimonious employment dispute the appellant was dismissed by Concrete Brothers. The appellant did not return his fuel card.

[3] On 2 November 2018, the appellant drove a Toyota van and trailer into a fuel station in Ohoka. There, he met another associate who was driving a stolen Suzuki vehicle. The appellant, his passenger and the other associate filled up three 1000 litre plastic containers on the back of the trailer with fuel. The appellant paid for the drums with the fuel card and then left. He returned two hours later with three more 1000 litre drums. The appellant returned at 4.00 am on 3 November, again towing a trailer with four 1000 litre containers. The appellant filled those containers and left.

[4] The transactions, valued at over $22,000 for the 5,344 litres of 95 octane and 4,780 litres of 91 octane fuel, were paid for using the stolen fuel card.

[5] Between 4 October 2018 and 3 November 2018, the stolen NPD card was used to purchase another 29,625.26 litres of fuel on 92 separate occasions. The appellant was physically present at about half of those occasions and assisted by providing the card at the remaining half. The cost of the additional 29,000 odd litres of fuel was
$67,774.16.

[6] On 4 November the stolen Suzuki vehicle used to pick up petrol was parked in the appellant’s driveway equipped with stolen plates. The appellant said he bought the vehicle from an unknown person in the pub for $800. This constituted the receiving a vehicle conviction.

[7] On Thursday 27 December 2018, the appellant removed both the front and rear license plates from a parking vehicle. These plates were said to have been attached to the Suzuki vehicle that the appellant had earlier received. This offending led to the theft conviction.

[8] On 11 January 2019 the appellant took a parcel that had been left by a courier at the door of…

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 Sunnex v Police

Details

AGLC: Sunnex v Police [2019] NZHC 2589
Case: [2019] NZHC 2589
Decision Date: 11 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the appellant, Ethan Peter Sunnex, appealed against his conviction and sentence for multiple charges, including dishonest use of a document, receiving a stolen vehicle, theft from a vehicle, and burglary. The conviction arose from the appellant's use of a fuel card stolen from his former employer to purchase large quantities of fuel, and his involvement in other theft-related activities. The appeal was against the two-year and five-month sentence imposed by the District Court. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether a different sentence should be imposed.

The court considered the appellant's submissions, which included arguments that he should have been treated as a first offender, that he had gained employment and was willing to pay reparation, and that the level of premeditation was overstated. The court also considered the submissions of the respondent, who argued that the starting point for sentencing was appropriate and that there were no grounds for additional discounts for remorse or reparation. The court rejected the appellant's arguments, finding that the starting point was appropriate and that the discounts for guilty pleas and remorse were correctly applied. The court also found that the appellant's employment status did not warrant a significant reduction in the sentence due to the seriousness of the offending and the limited ability to pay reparation.

The court held that there was no basis for concluding that the sentence was manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The reasoning of the District Court was found to be correct, and the sentence was upheld. The court's judgment highlighted the importance of considering the seriousness of the offending and the relevant aggravating factors in determining an appropriate sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Orders