Taylor v Police - [2023] NZHC 568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-409-215

[2023] NZHC 568

BETWEEN
TAMATI JOHN TAYLOR

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 13 December 2023

Appearances:

D B Iremonger for Appellant

W J S Mohammed for Respondent

Judgment:

18 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 December 2023 at 9.45 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

TAYLOR v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 568 [18 December 2023]

Introduction

[1] Tamati Taylor pleaded guilty to one charge of intimidation,1 one charge of wilful damage,2 and one charge of possessing an offensive weapon.3 On 6 October 2023, he was sentenced to one year, one month and 14 days’ imprisonment with an order to pay $400 in reparation.4 Mr Taylor appeals that decision on the following grounds:

(a)the overall starting point was excessive;

(b)the uplift of 10 per cent was excessive;

(c)the wilful damage charge should have been sentenced concurrently;

(d)the District Court Judge erred in not acknowledging remorse; and

(e)the Judge erred in denying the appellant leave to apply for home detention under s 80I of Sentencing Act 2002.

Facts

[2] Mr Taylor and the victim lived in adjoining flats in Edgeware, Christchurch. On 24 March 2023, Mr Taylor went to the victim’s flat and asked her whether she wanted him to do her groceries for her as she was unable to leave her address. She declined this offer, and Mr Taylor became angry and aggressive, demanding that she pay back money he said she owed to an associate of theirs. Mr Taylor said that if she did not give him the money by 12 pm, he would return and smash her windows with a golf club. Mr Taylor then went to his flat and returned with a crossbow in his hand and walked towards the victim. He pointed it at her and said “I’ll shoot you with this”. The victim moved away from Mr Taylor. As she did so, he said “you better pay or you

1      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a): maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a
$2,000 fine.
2      Section 11(1)(a): maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(b): maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
4      New Zealand Police v Taylor [2023] NZDC 22220.

know what will happen”. This incident gave rise to the charges of intimidation and possession of an offensive weapon.

[3] At around 12.48 am on 16 August 2023, Mr Taylor was at a different victim’s address socialising. The occupiers of the house asked him to leave. He initially left but then returned shortly after and began yelling at the victim and others from the front of the property, calling them “pussies” and requesting they come out and fight him. Mr Taylor smashed windows at the property. The victim was intimidated by Mr Taylor and fled out the back door of the property and…

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

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Police [2023] NZHC 568
Case: [2023] NZHC 568
Decision Date: 18 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tamati John Taylor appealed his sentence for intimidation, wilful damage, and possessing an offensive weapon. The District Court Judge had sentenced him to one year, one month, and 14 days’ imprisonment with an order to pay $400 in reparation. Mr Taylor’s appeal grounds were that the starting point was excessive, the uplift of 10 per cent was excessive, the wilful damage charge should have been sentenced concurrently, the Judge erred in not acknowledging remorse, and the Judge erred in denying leave to apply for home detention under s 80I of the Sentencing Act 2002. The High Court dismissed the appeal. The starting point of 16 months’ imprisonment was appropriate, as was the two-month uplift for the wilful damage charge. The 10 per cent uplift for previous convictions and offending on bail was also appropriate. The Judge was not required to refer to or provide a discount for the letters of remorse, as they were not genuine. The Judge did not err in declining leave to apply for home detention as he had considered the relevant principles and determined that a sentence of home detention could not adequately serve the purpose and principles of sentencing. The end sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Orders