Taylor v R - [2017] NZHC 1356

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2017-419-000010 [2017] NZHC 1356

BETWEEN
BRADLEY DAVID TAYLOR

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 20 June 2017

Appearances:

R Barnsdale for the Appellant
D J McWilliam for the Respondent

Judgment:

20 June 2017

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors: Almao Douch (Crown Solicitor), Hamilton

Counsel: Richard Barnsdale, Hamilton

TAYLOR v R [2017] NZHC 1356 [20 June 2017]

[1] Mr Taylor pleaded guilty to four charges of conveying threats of harm to people or property1 and one charge of theft.2 He was sentenced to a term of two years and six months imprisonment by Judge Spear in the District Court on
3 October 2016.3

[2] He now appeals against that sentence.

[3] The appeal is out of time. However, the Court may grant leave to appeal if it is in the interests of justice.4 The delay in appeal is not Mr Taylor’s fault. I grant leave to appeal.

Offending

[4] Mr Taylor was the Hamilton City Council groundsman for Gower Park.

[5] On the morning of Monday 21 June 2015, while he was working, Mr Taylor called 111 to report an explosive device he had located in the female toilets at the park. The police cordoned off the area for over four hours to prevent public access. Members of the New Zealand Defence Force Improvised Explosive Device Team, also known as the bomb squad, travelled from Auckland to dismantle the device. On arrival, they discovered quickly that the device was no more than a small length of PVC pipe, a black capacitor and wire held together with electrical tape.

[6] The following day, Mr Taylor called 111 once more to report he had located a package in the same location. On the package was a note which read:

Sorry about yesterday this one is the right one.

[7] Once again the area was cordoned off for four hours, the Improvised Explosive Device Team were called from Auckland, and the device was found to be the same items as previously, with the addition of six small bottles of coloured
liquid.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 307A(1)(b), which carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 219 and 223(b), which carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.
3      R v Taylor [2016] NZDC 19526.
4      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 248(4)(a).

[8] The following week, on Monday 29 June, another groundsman in the park located a similar device in the same location, although this time containing nails, a grey aggregate, ammunition and cotton wadding. Again, the Improvised Explosive Device Team was called in from Auckland, and the police cordoned off a significant area for almost four hours to prevent public access.

[9] The following day, Tuesday 30 June 2015, Mr Taylor called 111 once more and reported that he was standing on a bomb that was buzzing, and that if he were to move it would be set off. This time, the Improvised Explosive Device Team were flown to…

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 R

Details

AGLC: Taylor v R [2017] NZHC 1356
Case: [2017] NZHC 1356
Decision Date: 20 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bradley David Taylor pleaded guilty to four charges of conveying threats of harm to people or property and one charge of theft. The offending occurred over a period of time in June 2015, in which he constructed fake explosive devices and reported them to emergency services, causing significant disruption and resource usage. Taylor was sentenced to a term of two years and six months imprisonment by Judge Spear in the District Court. He now appeals that sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal is out of time, but the court may grant leave to appeal if it is in the interests of justice. The delay in appeal is not Taylor’s fault, so the court grants leave to appeal.

The court must consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The starting point for the sentence was too high, as Taylor's offending was less serious than that in the relevant case of R v Mangu. The court agrees with Judge Spear that the offending was a course of conduct, but each offence in isolation was less serious than that in Mangu or R v Bron. The court considers a starting point of two years imprisonment appropriate. The court also agrees with the discount for Taylor’s lack of previous convictions and his guilty pleas, but considers that a discount for the time he spent on bail is also appropriate. The bail conditions were sufficiently restrictive to justify a discount.

The court considers that offending of this type should ordinarily attract a sentence of imprisonment to deter the offender and others from further threats to the community. However, in Taylor’s circumstances, a sentence of home detention is appropriate. Factors in favour of commuting Taylor’s sentence include his lack of criminal history, his age, his guilty plea and his personal circumstances, which are unusual. A sentence of home detention would offer better prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration for Taylor. The court concludes that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and allows the appeal. The sentence of two and a half years imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of two months home detention is imposed, to be served at the home detention address identified in the pre-sentence report. Taylor is to attend and complete any appropriate assessment, treatment or counselling as directed by a probation officer.

Orders