Legal Research
Cases
Vale v Police

Vale v Police

Case [2020] NZHC 3520 22 December 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2020-404-000434

[2020] NZHC 3520

BETWEEN
DANIEL VALE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 8 December 2020

Appearances:

J Grainger and R Malolo for Appellant S Teppett for Respondent

Judgment:

22 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 December 2020 at 4.00 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service, Auckland Crown Solicitor, Auckland

VALE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 3520 [22 December 2020]

[1] Daniel Vale pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary.1 On 9 October 2020, Judge D J Sharp sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment. Mr Vale now appeals against this sentence on the basis the sentencing Judge erred in imposing the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed. 2

The offending

[2] On 10 August 2020, at about 1.00 am, Mr Vale threw a rock through the window of the New Zealand Coffee Company café in Grafton. He went inside and took some electronics, cups, and coins. Mr Vale was arrested soon thereafter, and the stolen property was recovered.3

Personal circumstances

[3] Mr Vale is a 42 year old male of European descent. The provision of advice to courts report (PAC report) records that the sentencing for the present offence was the 51st time that Mr Vale was before the Court for sentencing. He has 42 convictions for burglary, 40 convictions for other dishonesty offences, 57 convictions for wilful damage and graffiti, two arson convictions, seven convictions for assault or breaching community-based sentences and orders, nine drug possession convictions and 15 other convictions for minor offences. Underlying Mr Vale’s offending are mental health issues which he refuses to recognise. The PAC report records a diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome and paranoid schizophrenia. Asperger Syndrome is said to cause Mr Vale to have significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication as well as to have restricted and repetitive patterns of behaviour and interests. The report writer describes him discussing Scientology throughout the interview and being unable to sit down for the duration of the interview. The writer found it difficult to focus Mr Vale on the purpose of the PAC report.

[4] Before his imprisonment Mr Vale was essentially homeless and unemployed. My understanding is that he receives an invalid’s benefit. Although he denied the reality of his circumstances, he was sleeping in a derelict building beside St Benedict’s

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(10(a), carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011 s 250(2).
3      It is unclear what the value of the stolen goods was.

Catholic Church, Eden Terrace. The persons at St Benedict’s helped him from time to time and he provided work for them by helping maintain the church grounds. He did the same for the City Side Baptist Church and Lifewise Merge Café, which is connected with the Methodist Church.

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 Vale v Police

Details

AGLC: Vale v Police [2020] NZHC 3520
Case: [2020] NZHC 3520
Decision Date: 22 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daniel Vale appeals against a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment imposed for burglary. He contends the starting point and uplift were excessive. The respondent contends the sentence was within the available range and not manifestly excessive. The appeal raises questions about the approach to sentencing for repeat offending and how to properly apply aggravating and mitigating factors to the sentence. The sentencing Judge adopted a mixed approach to sentencing which combined elements of the Senior and Columbus approaches. The mixed approach increases the risk of double counting the offender's criminal history. The High Court found the starting point of 20 months' imprisonment was excessive because the offending was not as serious as the Judge had found. The High Court also found that the uplift was excessive because the offender's criminal history had been taken into account more than once. The High Court further found that the discount for mitigating factors was insufficient. The High Court substituted a sentence of eight months' imprisonment. The special release conditions imposed by the District Court remain in effect.

Orders