Thornicroft v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2018-441-29

[2018] NZHC 2889

JAYGE DAVID THORNICROFT

v

THE QUEEN

Hearing: 7 November 2018

Appearances:

L R H Grant and M M Dixon for the Appellant F E Cleary for the Crown

Judgment:

7 November 2018

RESULTS JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] After receiving Counsel’s submissions and hearing from Counsel by AVL, I delivered the following oral results judgment.

[2] I am allowing this appeal. The sentence of 11 months’ imprisonment is quashed and in substitution, six months’ imprisonment is imposed, with two special release conditions attaching, for a period of six months after the sentence expiry date, namely:

(a)Mr Thornicroft is to attend and complete an appropriate alcohol and drug counselling/programme/treatment including residential
rehabilitation to the satisfaction of a probation officer. The specific

THORNICROFT v R [2018] NZHC 2889 [7 November 2018]

details of the appropriate programme shall be determined by his probation officer.

(b)Mr Thornicroft is to attend an assessment for a departmental psychologist as directed by a probation officer. To attend and complete any counselling, treatment or programme as recommended by the assessment as directed by and to the satisfaction of his probation officer.

[3] On your instructions, as I understand it, Ms Grant, Mr Thornicroft has served three and a half months’ imprisonment. He is therefore due for release on a six month sentence, and the special release conditions will attach to that sentence.

Cull J

Solicitors:
Elvidge & Partners, Napier for Crown

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Jayge David Thornicroft appealed against his conviction and sentence for various criminal offences. The case was heard in the Napier Registry before Cull J, with submissions made by L R H Grant and M M Dixon on behalf of the appellant, and F E Cleary for the Crown. The appeal centred on the sentence imposed by the District Court, which Thornicroft argued was excessively harsh. The court was tasked with determining whether the original sentence was appropriate, and if not, what an appropriate alternative sentence would be.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive, and if so, what an appropriate alternative sentence would be. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, Thornicroft's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing set out in the Sentencing Act 2002. The court also had to consider the submissions made by both parties and the appropriate release conditions that should accompany any alternative sentence.

Cull J found that the sentence of 11 months' imprisonment was indeed manifestly excessive. The judge considered the nature of the offences, which included driving while disqualified, dangerous driving causing injury, and possession of methamphetamine. The judge also took into account Thornicroft's previous convictions for similar offences and his history of substance abuse. In light of these factors, the judge imposed a sentence of six months' imprisonment, with two special release conditions. These conditions required Thornicroft to attend and complete an appropriate alcohol and drug counselling programme, as well as attend an assessment for a departmental psychologist and follow any recommended treatment. The judge noted that Thornicroft had already served three and a half months' imprisonment and would be due for release on a six-month sentence, with the special release conditions attaching to that sentence.

In summary, the High Court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to six months' imprisonment, with two special release conditions. The decision highlights the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each offender when determining an appropriate sentence, as well as the need for appropriate treatment and rehabilitation for offenders with substance abuse issues.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	7 November 2018
Appearances:	L R H Grant and M M Dixon for the Appellant F E Cleary for the Crown
Judgment:	7 November 2018