Thompson v Police - [2017] NZHC 3039

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI 2017-483-13
CRI 2017-483-14

CRI 2017-483-15 [2017] NZHC 3039

BETWEEN
HANNON BRENT THOMPSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 7 December 2017 (via AVL)

Counsel:

R J Leith for Appellant
C B Wilkinson-Smith and C A Middleton for Respondent

Judgment:

7 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1] Mr Thompson appeals a sentence of two years and one month’ imprisonment imposed for three offences:1

(a) injuring with intent to injure; and

(b) two offences of breach of protection order.

Facts

[2] Mr Thompson became angry when his (most recent) partner returned to the house to collect things. He approached the victim in a way that made her think she

1 New Zealand Police v Thompson [2017] NZDC 24861.

was in danger. She ran away but came back a short time later. This pattern continued during the course of which Mr Thompson punched a hole in a bedroom door. Eventually the victim got outside, pursued by Mr Thompson. Mr Thompson picked up a wooden chair, chased the victim around the car, and eventually caught up with her. He felled the victim with a blow to the back of the head. She fell face forward onto the concrete causing damage to her face. The victim was hospitalised overnight.

[3] Subsequent to this offence, a protection order was made in relation to the victim. Two months later Mr Thompson on the same day twice visited her address to talk to her. He says he was concerned about where she was intending to move to. He considered it unsafe. After the first visit, the victim had messaged Mr Thompson telling him not to return and that he was unwelcome. During the second visit, made despite the message, Mr Thompson became angry and police were called.

[4] Over this same period a former partner of Mr Thompson, with whom he shares a son, obtained a protection order. On successive days Mr Thompson breached the order by ringing the victim. The purpose seems to have been to get access to his son.

[5] Mr Thompson is 30 years old with an extensive criminal record, albeit not one that has seen him ever sentenced to jail. He has no history of domestic violence, and has not been the subject of a protection order previously. The pre-sentence report draws a link between alcohol consumption and offending. Mr Thompson appears to accept the need for help in this area, whilst denying it was a factor in the assault. A notable feature of Mr Thompson’s record is a large number of breach offences concerning community work and supervision. He also has four drink driving offences, albeit the last was in August 2015.

Sentencing

[6] The Judge assessed the injuring offending as falling squarely within band two of R v Nuku.2 The Judge noted it was an attack to the head with a weapon. The victim

2 R v Nuku [2012]…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Thompson v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NZHC 3039
Decision Date: 7 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Hannon Brent Thompson appealed against his sentence for injuring with intent to injure and two offences of breach of protection order. Thompson's appeal centred on the severity of the sentence, arguing that the starting point was too high and the uplift for the protection order breaches was excessive. Thompson's argument was that the injuring offence was a single strike to the head with a chair, and the breaches were his first, with the contact being comparatively innocuous. He also argued that personal mitigating factors such as remorse and his enrolment in an anger management course should have been considered.

The court found that there was no merit in the challenge to the two-year starting point for the injuring offence as it was a shameful attack on a scared woman. The court acknowledged that the nine-month uplift for the protection order breaches was more open to challenge but held that the District Court's view was open to it given Thompson's history of ignoring court-ordered restraints. The court also noted that the cancellation of substantial fines and the lack of uplift for offending against bail conditions more than offset any denied allowance for remorse.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of two years and one month's imprisonment was upheld. The court held that the District Court's view was open to it given Thompson's history of ignoring court-ordered restraints and that the nine-month uplift for the protection order breaches was justified. The court also noted that the cancellation of substantial fines and the lack of uplift for offending against bail conditions more than offset any denied allowance for remorse.

Orders