IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE
CRI-2024-454-000029
[2024] NZHC 2880
BETWEEN
MATTHEW TAYLOR
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing:
25 September 2024
Counsel:
C J Nicholls for Appellant
A M Barham for Respondent
Judgment:
4 October 2024
JUDGMENT OF RADICH J
[1] Matthew Taylor has been convicted of a raft of charges for disparate offending that occurred over the period from November 2022 to January 2024. The particular charges are these: one charge of using forged documents to obtain pecuniary advantage,1 three charges of assault with a weapon,2 two charges of receiving, one relating to property valued over $1,0003 and one relating to property valued under
$500,4 one charge of escaping Police custody,5 one charge of possessing instruments for burglary,6 one charge of possessing a weapon in a public place,7 one charge of possessing ammunition,8 two charges of possessing a firearm or explosive,9 two
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 257(1)(a); maximum penalty ten years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 202C; maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
3 Sections 246 and 247(a); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4 Sections 246 and 247(c); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
5 Section 120; maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
6 Section 233(1)(a); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
7 Section 202A(4)(a); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
8 Arms Act 1983, s 22B; maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
9 Section 45(1); maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment.
TAYLOR v NZ POLICE [2024] NZHC 2880 [4 October 2024]
charges of possessing drug utensils,10 three charges of driving dangerously,11 one charge of driving with excess breath alcohol (third or subsequent),12 two charges of failing to remain stopped in a vehicle for Police,13 three charges of failing to stop to ascertain injury after an accident,14 one charge of leaving a place of detainment,15 two charges of resisting Police,16 and one charge of assault.17
[2] On 1 May 2024, Mr Taylor was sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment.18 He was disqualified from driving for two years and one month and ordered to pay a total of $7,680.21 in reparation for two of the charges of assault with a weapon.
[3] Mr Taylor brings this appeal from his sentence, saying the Judge set the starting point too high (and in the course of doing so should not have adopted the using a document charge as the lead offence), imposed excessive uplifts for previous offending and committing offences while on bail, and gave insufficient credit for various factors personal to him. The end sentence reached, he says, was manifestly excessive.
The offending
[4] Across seven days in November 2022, Mr Taylor used forged BP petrol station gift cards to make eight purchases, obtaining goods valued at $2,131.67.
[5] On 18 May 2023, Mr Taylor was driving a car when stopped by police. A search of the car was initiated and he was detained. Before the search was completed, he drove away. These events led to the charges of failing to remain stopped…
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 Taylor v Police
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Taylor v Police [2024] NZHC 2880
Case
[2024] NZHC 2880
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Matthew Taylor has appealed his sentence for a series of serious offences. The District Court Judge sentenced Taylor to five years and six months' imprisonment, along with disqualification from driving for two years and one month, and ordered him to pay reparation. Taylor argues that the Judge set the starting point too high, imposed excessive uplifts for previous offending and committing offences while on bail, and gave insufficient credit for personal factors such as his upbringing and addiction. The High Court found that the starting point adopted by the Judge was too high and that the uplifts applied were excessive. The Court found that the Judge should have applied a discount for Taylor's guilty pleas of 25 per cent, rather than 20 per cent, and that Taylor was entitled to a 10 per cent discount for his upbringing in State care, his addiction to methamphetamine, and his cultural disconnection. The Court found that the sentence imposed by the Judge was manifestly excessive and quashed the sentence. The Court imposed a sentence of three years and four months' imprisonment, to be served on the assault with a weapon charges, with concurrent sentences on the other charges. The Court found that the Judge's sentences for disqualification, destruction and reparation were not the subject of appeal and remained in place.