The Queen v Kevin William Martin

[2000] NZCA 105

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 94/00

THE QUEEN

V

KEVIN WILLIAM MARTIN

Hearing:	28 June 2000
Coram:	Tipping J Heron J Williams J
Appearances:	Appellant in Person N M Crutchley for Respondent
Judgment:	29 June 2000

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY HERON J

1. Kevin William Martin appeals against his conviction and sentence for one count of contravening a protection order contrary to the provision of the Domestic Violence Act 1995, and two charges of threatening to do grievous bodily harm to Graeme John Shrimpton, his former wife’s present husband.

2. The appellant was tried before a Judge and jury in the District Court at Greymouth, on 14 March 2000.  He was sentenced to six months periodic detention and twelve months supervision.

3. Mr Martin appeared in person and we explained that this Court had no right to hear the case de novo.  It was plain that his reasons for appealing against his conviction had no prospect of any success in this court, and were in any event, mainly directed to matters of sentence.

4. The appellant now living in Havelock North has it would seem, disentangled himself from a difficult domestic situation in Greymouth.  He has also come under the influence of the Bahai Faith.  He is staying with a friend who is also his counsellor on alcohol and drug matters.  He feels that the law has been too readily used to pursue him, but done little when his rights, and in particular rights of access to children have been involved. 

5. We consider as the Judge did that he had started to address the real issues that he faced, and by obtaining assistance and as a result of his religion, was keeping away from the source of the troubles for which he was convicted, and was making progress towards ultimate renewal of relations with his children.

6. On our short discussion with Mr Martin, he confirmed the progress he had made and how philosophically he was now better able to meet these problems.  His principle concern was the sentence of periodic detention.  He thought that was severe in the circumstances.  Having regard to what he had been through with his family troubles and that he had largely put those behind him, that should be recognised.  He said as a cannabis addict contact with periodic detainees exposed him to further temptation.  He does however have the ongoing support of his friends and counsellor in that regard.

7. The Judge in the Court below did acknowledge his progress when he fixed the sentence that he did.  It has to be remembered however, that he was facing not only a breach of the Domestic Violence Act but two quite serious charges of threatening to do grievous bodily harm and something more than just supervision had to be imposed in that respect.  We accept from Mr Martin his good intentions but it would be impossible for this Court to interfere with a sentence which had recognised those factors.

8. There is nothing in the sentence, having heard from Mr Martin, which gives us any cause for concern, and it follows from that that the appeal against sentence and conviction must be dismissed.

9. He is to report to the Hastings Periodic Detention Centre, 111 Stoneycroft Street, Hastings on Friday 7 July 2000 and thereafter as directed by the warden.  He is not to serve any sentence longer than nine hours in any one day.