Vujcich v Police - [2019] NZHC 2482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-406

[2019] NZHC 2482

BETWEEN
ANTON IVAN VUJCICH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 30 September 2019

Appearances:

T Beach for Appellant

K Guilford for Respondent

Judgment:

30 September 2019

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

VUJCICH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2482 [30 September 2019]

[1] Mr Vujcich pleaded guilty in the District Court to two charges of breaching a protection order.1 On 4 September 2019 Judge Sainsbury sentenced him to seven and a half months home detention.2

[2] Mr Vujcich appeals against sentence on the basis that the end sentence was manifestly excessive. He says this occurred because the Judge adopted a starting point on one of the charges that was too high and then added an uplift on the other charge that was excessive. Mr Vujcich also contends the Judge failed to give him due credit for taking rehabilitative steps prior to sentencing.

The facts

[3] The facts were contained in a summary of facts produced by the police in the District Court. I take Mr Vujcich to have agreed to the contents of the summary before he entered his guilty pleas. The summary records that a final protection order was issued against Mr Vujcich in the Waitakere Family Court on 14 December 2017. The order extended protection to Mr Vujcich’s former partner and their two children.

[4] The first charge was laid as a result of an incident that occurred on 28 June 2018. The incident occurred against a backdrop of proceedings in the Family Court in which Mr Vujcich was endeavouring to gain increased contact with his children. A lawyer had been appointed to represent the interests of the children in the Family Court proceedings.

[5] On 28 June 2018 Mr Vujcich sent an email to both the lawyer for the children and his former partner’s solicitor. The email was accompanied by a digital attachment containing a photograph of the naked torso of his former partner. The email contained the following statements:

I will now start sending all the naked photos and sex emails from your client to me and put them in newspapers.

…

You have 24 hours to make [the victim of the offending] respond.

1 Domestic Violence Act 1995, ss 19(1)(d) and (2)(e).
2 Police v Vujcich [2019] NZDC 17444.

…

You think I’m joking? Find attached photo from [the victim] to me. You guys have been asked to stop the roadblocks from the psychopath, you’ve now got 24 hours to do it.

[6] When the police investigated the complaint that was made as a result of this incident, they searched electronic devices found in Mr Vujcich’s home. This led to the discovery that Mr Vujcich had established an Instagram profile page under a name having no association with his own. Instagram is a social networking service that permits those who subscribe to the service to post photographs and…

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 Vujcich v Police

Details

AGLC: Vujcich v Police [2019] NZHC 2482
Case: [2019] NZHC 2482
Decision Date: 30 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Vujcich v Police involves Anton Ivan Vujcich appealing against his sentence imposed by the District Court for breaching a protection order. The respondent, New Zealand Police, was represented by K Guilford, while Vujcich was represented by T Beach. The appeal was heard and decided on 30 September 2019. Vujcich's primary argument against his sentence was that it was manifestly excessive due to the starting point being too high and the uplift on the second charge being excessive. He also claimed that the court failed to give him due credit for taking rehabilitative steps prior to sentencing.

The court examined whether the starting point was appropriate, considering the aggravating factors identified by the District Court. The Judge had set the starting point at 18 months imprisonment for the first charge, which involved Vujcich sending an intimate image to third parties and sending threatening emails. The court found that while the aggravating factors were properly taken into account, the starting point of 18 months was too high, and a starting point of 12 months would have been more appropriate.

Regarding the uplift for the second charge, the court found that an uplift of six months was excessive. The court considered that an uplift of three months was more appropriate, taking into account that there was no suggestion that the complainant had read the messages or connected them to Vujcich. Consequently, the court determined that a starting point of 15 months imprisonment was appropriate. After considering mitigating factors, the court found a sentence of nine months imprisonment to be appropriate, which would convert to four and a half months home detention.

The appeal against sentence was allowed, and the sentence of seven and a half months home detention was quashed. In its place, the court imposed a sentence of four and a half months home detention on the same conditions as the existing sentence.

Orders