Taylor v Police - [2014] NZHC 1139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-485-34 [2014] NZHC 1139

EVAN TAYLOR

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 27 May 2014

Counsel:

S Bollard for Appellant
J A Eng for Crown

Judgment:

27 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

Introduction

[1] The appellant was sentenced on 31 March 2014 in the District Court to

28 months’ imprisonment on charges of threatening to kill, common assault and resisting police. As to the last two counts concurrent sentences of six months and two months’ imprisonment were imposed.

[2] The appellant appeals arguing that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

[3] In a succinct and, I think, uncontroversial recitation of the facts upon which the appellant was sentenced, the learned Judge recorded as follows – here I draw from her sentencing notes.

TAYLOR v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 1139 [27 May 2014]

Facts

[4] The victim was the appellant’s former partner. They had been together for about seven months. On 8 January, the victim was at home with her mother. When her mother left, the victim heard someone walking down the stairs next to the flat. She was afraid that it was the appellant but went to the door. She realised that it was indeed the appellant and tried to lock the door to prevent his entry but failed. The appellant pushed at the door and forced his way in. He pinned the victim against a bedroom door – that is between the door and a washing machine. She suffered minor injuries as a result.

[5] The appellant “screamed” at the victim that she was a “nark” for going to the police and he threatened her that she needed to get out of the Hutt Valley or he will kill her. The victim then screamed and tried to push the appellant away. She reached for the phone to call the police and the appellant left. She did indeed call the police and the appellant was arrested a short while later – although he had to be restrained which the police did by deploying a taser.

[6] The Judge records that the victim was already extremely afraid of the appellant and had obtained a protection order just two days before the attack. She felt the appellant was stalking her and seeking retribution for the steps she had taken in obtaining the protection order. The victim said that the appellant had in fact harassed her for months after separation and she remained afraid throughout.

[7] The appellant is 44 years old. He has an extensive history of convictions –

130 in all, according to the sentencing Judge, most of them arising from chronic drug addiction. The learned Judge recorded that at least 11 of those convictions relate to domestic violence. The appellant’s counsel challenges her assessment in that respect but nothing turns on that issue. The Judge recorded that three separate victims have now suffered at the hands of the appellant in relation to domestic violence offending. There have been two convictions for…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Taylor 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 1139
Decision Date: 27 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Taylor v Police, the appellant, Evan Taylor, was sentenced by the District Court to 28 months' imprisonment on charges of threatening to kill, common assault, and resisting police. Taylor appeals the sentence, arguing it is manifestly excessive. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate and whether it was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the appellant's history of convictions, which included 130 offences, predominantly related to chronic drug addiction, with at least 11 convictions involving domestic violence. The appellant had a history of violence against three different victims, with two prior convictions for threatening to kill and breaches of protection orders. Despite this, the court recognised the appellant's current signs of motivation to change and his willingness to attend rehabilitation programs upon release. The court scrutinised the sentencing calculation, which started at three years for the threatening to kill charge, with a six-month uplift for the assault and resisting police, resulting in a total of 42 months' imprisonment. After applying the credit for an early guilty plea, the sentence was reduced to 28 months.

The court concluded that the starting point of three years for the threatening to kill charge was too high, even considering the appellant's history. The six-month uplift for the totality was also excessive. The court found the final sentence of 28 months to be manifestly excessive. The court substituted a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, with an appropriate uplift of six months for the previous history and three months for the assault and resisting police. The court also allowed discounts for the guilty plea and the appellant's remorse and willingness to address the causes of his offending. The court ordered the appellant to complete the Medium Intensity Rehabilitation Programme as a release condition. The appeal was allowed, the original sentence was quashed, and the substituted sentence was substituted.

Orders