CThe Court, pursuant to ss 144B and 123 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, extends the time for Mr Taylor to file an appeal against conviction.
DThe appeal is allowed, and the four convictions entered on 30 January 2012, following guilty pleas, are quashed. The matter is remitted to the District Court for Mr Taylor to plead again to the charges.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Simon France J)

Introduction

This appeal by way of case stated from the High Court concerns whether a sentence imposed in the Queenstown District Court following a sentence indication differed sufficiently from the indication to warrant allowing Mr Taylor an opportunity to vacate his guilty pleas. On the day of the appeal hearing this Court issued a results judgment in which it allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and remitted the matter back to the District Court. We now give our reasons.

Facts

Mr Taylor is a recidivist property offender. Prior to the present matters, he had 23 convictions for burglary, and over 213 convictions for other dishonesty offending. The present charges relate to events that occurred over a short period of time in late 2011.
The sequence was:
(a)7 November 2011 – charged with burglary, and remanded in custody. The incident occurred on 29 September 2011, and was soon amended to a charge of unlawfully entering a yard;
(b)8 November 2011 – granted bail on what was at that point still a burglary charge;
(c)7 December 2011 – charged with obtaining $50 worth of goods by deception. This offending occurred on 20 November, so during the time when he was on bail for the original 7 November burglary charge. Mr Taylor was remanded in custody;
(d)27 December 2011 – whilst still in custody, charged with theft of copper piping and pressure valves from an address where they were stored. This offending occurred sometime between 1 November and 23 December 2011. Mr Taylor was again remanded in custody;
(e)29 December 2011 – granted bail on all charges;
(f)30 December 2011 – stole a wallet and a purse (containing cash ($180) and credits cards) from two lockers at a local swimming pool. Arrested on 31 December and remanded in custody. Because police believe the lockers were in a secure area, the offence is charged as burglary.
The sentencing indication, and sentence, then occurred on 30 January 2012. By this stage Mr Taylor was accepting responsibility for the swimming…

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 [2013] NZCA 55
Case: [2013] NZCA 55
Decision Date: 14 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal by Derek John Taylor against the Queen. Taylor sought to challenge his convictions and sentences for various offences, including burglary and obtaining goods by deception. The primary issue before the Court was whether the High Court erred in considering the ability of Taylor's counsel to seek clarity on the term "significant" used in the sentencing indication. A secondary issue was whether counsel should have expected an uplift of 18 months to two years.

The Court found that the High Court did indeed err in considering the ability of counsel to seek clarity on the term "significant". The Court held that the disparity between the sentencing indication and the actual sentence was significant enough to warrant reconsideration of Taylor's guilty pleas. The Court held that the accused must be offered the opportunity to withdraw his or her plea if there is a significant disparity between the indication and the final sentence, and the plea has flowed from the indication. The Court also found that it was not necessary to examine the second issue as the first issue was sufficient to dispose of the case.

The Court allowed the appeal, quashed Taylor's convictions and sentences, and remitted the matter back to the District Court for Taylor to plead again to the charges. The Court extended the time for Taylor to file an appeal against conviction, and treated the appeal as being against both conviction and sentence.

Orders