Taam v Police
[2012] NZHC 3128
•22 November 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
CRI-2012-409-90 [2012] NZHC 3128
CHARLES RENEE TAAM
Appellant
v
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Appearances: D Bunce for Appellant
C Boshier for Respondent
Judgment: 22 November 2012
ORAL JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J
[1] This is an appeal from a sentence imposed by the District Court, Judge Saunders, after a plea of guilty to a charge of burglary and to a subsequent charge of a breach of bail. The charge of burglary was taken as the lead charge.
[2] The offender had broken into a residential property in Christchurch, in daylight, smashing a hole in the bathroom window and gaining access. The occupant was in the home at the time and, as the Judge said, very wisely chose to leave the property and call the police.
[3] These kinds of burglaries in daylight, risking occupancy of the home, are potentially serious. Even more serious than burglary is a risk confrontation and
physical harm or worse to the occupiers.
TAAM V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC CHCH CRI-2012-409-90 [22 November 2012]
[4] The appellant stole a necklace and some other jewellery, a wallet, IPod and garage door opener.
[5] The appellant has, unfortunately, quite a significant history of criminal offending. He is 35 years of age now, but he first appeared when he was 17 years of age, and that was a burglary. He has committed a number of offences, including other burglary offences. He has been sentenced to prison before for burglary, that was in 2004. In 2007, he was sentenced to three years imprisonment for burglary. The Judge said that represented, on his count, his thirteenth conviction for burglary.
[6] Mr Bunce fairly considered that his client could be described as a recidivist burglar. Mr Bunce’s principal argument is that he was caught by surprise by the Judge’s use of a system known as the ROC*Ro1 system. This is an internal system. When I say internal, it is an in-house tool used by Corrections. Usually, as it were, used behind the scenes. This Court recognises that Judge Saunders is a senior member of the Parole Board and is also an extremely experienced District Court Judge, particularly on the subject of sentencing and sentencing options.
[7] There have been a few cases in which this system has been referred to in judgments, but it is unusual. I do have some sympathy for Mr Bunce being caught by surprise. It may well be, given the pressure of District Court work, that where a Judge is minded to use this system in assessing sentence, it is not actually possible to give notice to the offender and the offender’s counsel in advance. I am not sure whether this is the occasion to send a sentencing process back on the basis that defence counsel can have an opportunity to come to grips with the ROC*Ro1 argument. I have considered that. But, as I put it to Mr Bunce, if you take this part of the reasoning out of the decision, there is other reasoning, more traditional reasoning, particularly in paragraphs [10] to [13] of the judgment under appeal which, in my view, would justify the sentence being imposed.
[8] Mr Bunce did also criticise the discount for the early plea of guilty as calculated at 18 percent. There is room for discretion of the sentencing Judge as to what discount to give, and I am not minded to fiddle with an assessment at 18 percent, which could be say between 18 and no more than 25 percent. As I
mentioned to Mr Bunce in argument, this Court does recognise that Judge Saunders is regarded by the judiciary as an expert on sentencing, and on sentencing options.
[9] There was a recommendation from the Department of Corrections of home detention, which I am sure the Judge took into account. But in the end, after hearing argument, I am by no means persuaded that there was any error of principle, or that the sentence is manifestly excessive. For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.
Solicitors:
D Bunce, Christchurch – [email protected]
Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch - [email protected]
0
0
0