The Queen v Manson - [2009] NZCA 158

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA82/2009
[2009] NZCA 158
THE QUEEN
v
DAVID PAUL MANSON
Hearing:27 April 2009

Court:Robertson, Chisholm and Gendall JJ
Counsel:E J Forster for Appellant

S B Edwards for Crown

Judgment:30 April 2009 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE IS DISMISSED.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Robertson J)
[1]        Mr Manson appeals against a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment imposed upon him by Judge Adeane in the District Court at Napier on 30 January 2009, after he had been found guilty by a jury on a charge of intentionally (without claim of right) damaging by fire a motor vehicle in which he had no interest, contrary to ss 267 and 66 of the Crimes Act 1961.
[2]        The nub of the appeal is that the sentence was manifestly excessive given that a sentence of two years and ten months’ imprisonment had been imposed upon him in the same Court by Judge Rea on 29 September 2008 in respect of other offences, some of which were closely related.
[3]        Mr Manson contends that the total effective sentence of four years and four months’ imprisonment for all the offending was not in conformity with the decisions of this Court which are submitted to be relevant and that it was wrong in principle.
The September 2008 sentencing
[4]        Judge Rea described the offending for which he sentenced Mr Manson thus:
[2]       Mr Manson, you have been something of a one-man crime wave for a while. The saga that I am dealing with today, effectively starts back on the 10^th of October last year when you appeared in the Hastings District Court for driving with excess breath alcohol and refusing to accompany. You were disqualified from driving for a period of six months from that date.
[3]       At 11.15pm on the 29^th of February this year, you were driving a Mitsubishi motor vehicle in Frederick Street, Hastings. You were stopped due to carrying passengers in the back of the Ute that you were driving. You gave false details. You underwent breath testing and you were found to have a breath level of 593 which is close to one and a half times the legal limit. Obviously you were also driving whilst disqualified. According to my reading of your record this is your fifth drink driving offence in the last eight years and your third driving whilst disqualified in the last eight years. While you were on bail for those, you then embarked upon other criminal activity that has to be dealt with.
[4]       On the 28^th of June, you were with two associates in St George’s Road South in Hastings. You and your associates approached the residential address of 625 St George’s Road with the intention of breaking into the house. You established that no one was home. One of the group smashed the front door allowing entry to the address. You and your associates entered the address…

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 The Queen v Manson

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Manson [2009] NZCA 158
Case: [2009] NZCA 158
Decision Date: 30 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Manson, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was presented with an appeal against a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment imposed by Judge Adeane in the District Court at Napier. David Paul Manson had been found guilty of intentionally damaging a motor vehicle by fire, contrary to sections 267 and 66 of the Crimes Act 1961. The appeal focused on the claim that the sentence was manifestly excessive, given that Manson had previously been sentenced to two years and ten months' imprisonment for other offences, some of which were closely related. The crux of the appeal was that the total effective sentence of four years and four months' imprisonment was not in line with the decisions of the Court of Appeal and was considered wrong in principle.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the court had failed to take into account the previous seven-month sentence when assessing the total picture. The court examined the totality of Manson's offending, which included multiple instances of dishonesty, arson, and driving offences, some of which occurred on the same night. The court considered the severity and nature of the offending, as well as Manson's criminal history, which included numerous previous convictions. The court also took into account the separate nature of the driving charges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the total effective sentence of four years and four months' imprisonment was not outside the properly available range. The court emphasised that the ongoing serious offending by Manson over many years necessitated a substantial term of imprisonment. The court found that Judge Adeane had not overlooked the previous sentence and had taken it into account in the assessment of Manson's overall culpability and responsibility.

Orders