Thompson v Police - [2019] NZHC 1983

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-154

[2019] NZHC 1983

BETWEEN
CHARLIE THOMPSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 22 July 2019

Counsel:

N Soondram for Appellant

S T L Teppett for Respondent

Judgment:

14 August 2019

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 August 2019 at 3:00 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent

Counsel:
Nalini Soondram (Auckland) for Appellant

THOMPSON v POLICE [2019] NZHC 1983 [14 August 2019]

Introduction

[1] Mr Thompson appeals his sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Ronayne.1 The sentence was the end point reached by the Judge in respect of violent offending by Mr Thompson against his former partner. The offending occurred over a period of eight months on four separate occasions.

[2]The grounds of the appeal are that:

(a)the Judge erred in law by imposing sentences cumulatively instead of concurrently; and

(b)the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

[3] The first ground of appeal is misconceived. The maximum sentence for the most serious of the charges is three years’ imprisonment. To achieve an end sentence above three years’ imprisonment the Judge had no choice but to impose sentences cumulatively.

[4] The second ground of appeal is the operative one. If the end sentence is manifestly excessive then that is an error which means I must allow the appeal and impose a different sentence.

Background

[5]The facts of Mr Thompson’s offending are as follows:

(a)15 December 2017 – male assaults female.2 During an argument at the Glen Innes train station Mr Thompson shoved, pushed, and yelled at the victim to walk faster. She became frightened and tried to grab a steel railing while Mr Thompson tried to pull her from it. She let go of the railing for fear her arms would break and he forcibly carried her

1 New Zealand Police v Thompson [2019] NZDC 3625.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 194(b). Maximum sentence two years’ imprisonment.

down the footpath. When she managed to break free he grabbed her, and again pulled her off the railing. When she attempted to call the police, Mr Thompson struck the phone from her hand causing it to smash. The victim sustained minor scratches and red marks to her arms, which were sore.

Mr Thompson was granted bail in respect of this charge on 26 December 2017, with a condition that he was not to associate with the victim. He pleaded guilty to the charge on 30 January 2018.

(b)8 January 2018 – assault with intent to injure.3 Mr Thompson went to the victim’s home in breach of the non-association bail condition. When she told him he could not stay an argument broke out. The victim attempted to leave the room, but Mr Thompson grabbed her and wrapped her in a bear hug. She called for help and Mr Thompson wrapped his hands around her neck and choked her.…

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 Thompson v Police

Details

AGLC: Thompson v Police [2019] NZHC 1983
Case: [2019] NZHC 1983
Decision Date: 14 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Charlie Thompson appealed his sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Ronayne for violent offending against his former partner over an eight-month period. The grounds of appeal were that the Judge erred in imposing sentences cumulatively instead of concurrently and that the end sentence was manifestly excessive. The court held that the first ground of appeal was misconceived as the maximum sentence for the most serious of the charges was three years’ imprisonment and to achieve an end sentence above three years’ imprisonment, the Judge had no choice but to impose sentences cumulatively. The second ground of appeal was the operative one. The court held that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the Court of Appeal cases which had produced a range of sentences. The range went from sentences higher than in the present case to sentences lower than in the present case. The facts of each case were dissimilar but the range gave the court broad assistance in assessing whether Mr Thompson’s sentence was manifestly excessive. The court held that the end sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment was within the range available to Judge Ronayne. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders