Tauwhare v Police

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-409-000019 [2014] NZHC 676

BETWEEN  PIERRE JOHN TAUWHARE Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:                   27 March 2014

Appearances:           K J Gray for Appellant

D J Orchard for Respondent

Judgment:                4 April 2014

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1]      The appellant appeals against a sentence of two years, nine months imposed by Judge Garland in the District Court on 14 January 2014.   The sentence was imposed following guilty pleas on a range of offending undertaken by the appellant, this offending having occurred between July 2013 and September 2013.

[2]      The charges for which guilty pleas were entered and the sentences involved were as follows:

(a)       One charge of burglary (maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment) - sentence of two and a half years imprisonment;

(b)      Theft   from   Monteiths’   Bar   (maximum    penalty   three    months’

imprisonment) - sentence of one month imprisonment imposed;

TAUWHARE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 676 [4 April 2014]

(c)       Theft   from    Anchor    Motel    (maximum    penalty    three    months’

imprisonment) - sentence of one month imprisonment imposed;

(d)      One  charge  of  reckless  driving  (maximum  penalty  three  months’

imprisonment, $4500 fine with minimum six months disqualification)

-  sentence  of  two  months  imprisonment  imposed  and  one  year disqualification from driving;

(e)     One charge of failing to stop (maximum penalty six months’ disqualification and $10,000 fine) - sentence of three months’ disqualification (cumulative) imposed;

(f)      One charge of possession of an offensive weapon, namely a knife (maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment) - sentence of two months’ imprisonment imposed (cumulative);

(g)One   charge   of   giving   false   alarm   -   sentence   of   one   month imprisonment imposed (cumulative);

(h)One charge of theft from Kmart (maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment) - sentence of one month imprisonment imposed (concurrent);

(i)Two charges of wilful trespass (maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment), two charges of assault (maximum penalty one year imprisonment), one charge of wilful damage (maximum penalty three months imprisonment) and one charge of breach of District Court bail

- one month imprisonment imposed (concurrent).

The facts

[3]      The facts of the offending range over a number of matters and are quite detailed.   They are set out at paragraphs [2] – [9] of Judge Garland’s sentencing notes in the District Court.  In light of the magnitude of the offending involved here

it is useful for the purposes of this appeal to set out those facts in full here which I

now do:

[2]       What you did that has caused you to come before the Court today is as follows:  At about 10.30 am on Tuesday 2 July last year you were at the Salvation Army  offices,  Crawford  Street,  Dunedin  where  you  had  been working as  a  volunteer for  approximately three  years.   You  entered the gymnasium area where a group of women were playing volley ball.   You asked to join in the game but your request was declined.  So you stood and watched.  The woman concerned approached you and asked that you leave the area.  You apparently took umbrage at that because what you…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tauwhare v Police and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] NZHC 676
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pierre John Tauwhare appeals against the sentence of two years, nine months imprisonment imposed by Judge Garland in the District Court. The sentence followed Tauwhare’s guilty pleas for a range of offending occurring between July and September 2013, including burglary, theft, reckless driving, and giving a false alarm. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the District Court's sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered the appellant's lengthy history of offending and the severity of the current crime spree. It found that the 15-month uplift in relation to the group of offences was not inappropriate. The court also concluded that the District Court's discount for guilty pleas, while perhaps not maximal, did not warrant interference, given the minimal impact on the overall sentence. The appeal against the sentence of reparation was also dismissed, as the court deemed the amount realistic and not imposing undue hardship. Therefore, the appeal against the sentence is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.