Vujcich v Police - [2013] NZHC 1747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2013-463-49 [2013] NZHC 1747

BETWEEN MATTHEW WAYNE VUJCICH Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 11 July 2013

Appearances: A Burns for Appellant
C Macklin for Respondent

Judgment: 11 July 2013

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

MATTHEW WAYNE VUJCICH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 1747 [11 July 2013]

[1] Mr Vujcich pleaded guilty in the District Court to charges of demanding with menaces and aggravated driving whilst disqualified. The latter charge was laid because this was the eighth occasion on which Mr Vujcich had been convicted of driving whilst disqualified.

[2] On 10 June 2013, Judge Munro sentenced Mr Vujcich to an effective term of two years one month imprisonment.[1] Mr Vujcich appeals against conviction on the basis that the end sentence the Judge imposed was manifestly excessive. He argues that the sentence ought to have been one of less than two years imprisonment so that the Judge could have considered a sentence of home detention. He contends that he was a worthwhile candidate for that sentence.

The facts

[1] New Zealand Police v Vujcich DC Rotorua CRI-2013-063-000468, 10 June 2013.

[3] The two charges arose out of two separate sets of events. The charge of demanding with menaces arose after Mr Vujcich went to visit family in the Kaikohe area. Whilst there, he ended up drinking with a relative and one of his relative’s associates on the evening of 10 December 2012. The three men then travelled to the victim’s address with the intention of obtaining money from him. The victim had apparently purchased a car from one of the group approximately 18 months earlier.

[4] When the three men arrived at the victim’s address, they walked inside and found the victim lying on the couch watching television. One of Mr Vujcich’s co- defendants, Mr George, then told the victim that they wanted the rest of the money they were owed for the sale of the car. He and others in the group then threatened to smash up the house and to beat up the victim and his family.

[5] The victim did not give in. He told the three intruders that he owed them nothing for the vehicle as he had paid for it in full. He said that he was not going to give them any money. Shortly after this, a violent incident arose in which the three men became involved in a wrestling match on the ground with the victim. At some stage during this, Mr Vujcich kicked the victim once in the back of the head. The
altercation ended when the victim was able to get to his feet and take possession of a

spade that Mr George had been brandishing, and that he had used to strike the victim on the back of the head. Once the victim had got hold of the spade, Mr Vujcich and his associates then ran back to their car, shouting as they did so that…

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 [2013] NZHC 1747
Case: [2013] NZHC 1747
Decision Date: 11 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Wayne Vujcich has appealed against his sentence on the basis that the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive. Vujcich was sentenced to an effective term of two years and one month imprisonment for charges of demanding with menaces and aggravated driving while disqualified. Vujcich argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and should have been less than two years imprisonment so that the judge could have considered a sentence of home detention. Vujcich submitted that he was a suitable candidate for home detention. Vujcich’s appeal was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court found that the sentence imposed by the District Court was broadly in line with that contemplated by the other judge who sentenced Vujcich’s co-offender. The High Court further found that Vujcich could not be regarded as a realistic candidate for home detention due to his previous conduct in growing cannabis in his house while serving such a sentence. The Court also noted that Vujcich had a reasonably lengthy history of breaching court orders other than those disqualifying him from driving.

Orders