Taylor v Police - [2018] NZHC 1377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2018-412-7

[2018] NZHC 1377

BETWEEN
DEREK JOHN TAYLOR

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 6 June 2018

Appearances:

D Henderson for Appellant C Ure for Respondent

Judgment:

12 June 2018

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] The appellant, Mr Derek Taylor, pleaded guilty to a charge of assault.1 Judge Phillips sentenced him to 80 hours of community work and six months’ supervision. A protection order was also made in favour of the victim.2 Mr Taylor now appeals the making of that order.

Background

[2] Mr Taylor and the victim have been in an intermittent relationship for the past 19 years. At the time of the offending, they had been back together for the previous four years and were living together.

[3] The assault occurred when they were travelling together in the defendant’s light truck. The victim was driving the vehicle. Mr Taylor became angry with the

1 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 9.
2 Sentencing Act 2002, s 123B.

TAYLOR v POLICE [2018] NZHC 1377 [12 June 2018]

victim’s driving. He kicked the front console in anger which caused the glovebox lid to detach. He then picked up the lid and threw it across the truck, hitting the victim on her upper left arm, and leaving a minor bruise. The victim endeavoured to calm Mr Taylor down. However, he then poked her in the left side of her face.

[4] When Mr Taylor wanted to stop at a store and got out of the truck, the victim, fearing for her safety, took the opportunity to drive off, leaving him behind.

The District Court decision

[5] In sentencing Mr Taylor, Judge Phillips noted the victim’s view, that Mr Taylor had shown no remorse, regret or responsibility for his offending. She considered that he blamed others, and described him as dangerous. She wished to have a protection order made against him.

[6] The Judge referred to the appellant’s criminal history which was primarily for dishonesty offending. The pre-sentence report writer described the likelihood of Mr Taylor reoffending as high because of the regularity of his previous offending and his tendency to act impulsively. Judge Phillips observed that Mr Taylor had told the writer that he had pleaded guilty to get the charge dealt with quickly, and that he had shown little remorse, stating that “all couples argue at some point in their relationship”.

[7] The Judge was satisfied that Mr Taylor had now been convicted of an offence involving domestic violence, that there was presently no protection order in favour of the victim and that she desired such an order. He considered there was a need for a protection order. Being satisfied that Mr Taylor was inclined to act in an impulsive way without thinking about the consequences, his dismissive attitude, and the concerns expressed by the victim, Judge Phillips considered there was a need for a protection order. He dismissed a view expressed on…

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 [2018] NZHC 1377
Case: [2018] NZHC 1377
Decision Date: 12 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Derek John Taylor appeals against a protection order imposed by Judge Phillips in the District Court. Taylor had pleaded guilty to assaulting his partner. The District Court imposed a protection order in favour of the victim. Taylor submits that the protection order was not necessary for the victim's protection. The court must decide whether the District Court erred in imposing the protection order. The court holds that there were adequate grounds available to Judge Phillips to issue the protection order. Any concerns that arise from the submissions challenging the District Court decision are allayed by the further information that has been provided by the Crown. The appeal against the imposition of the protection order is dismissed.

The court found that the information from the victim indicates she is afraid of the appellant and wishes to have a protection order against him as part of a plan for managing the risk she perceives Taylor presents to her safety. The court also held that Taylor’s lack of remorse or insight into his offending is an important factor. Taylor’s failure to acknowledge any genuine responsibility for assaulting his partner can only add to the victim’s fears for her safety. The court held that the two most recent events involving the victim in isolation might be considered minor or trivial, but when considered together with the assault for which Taylor was before the court, they constitute a pattern of behaviour which would warrant a protection order. The concerns expressed by the victim in her victim impact statement resonate with even more force when the earlier instances of domestic violence are taken into account.

Orders