Walker v Police Department

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2018-419-000035

[2018] NZHC 2487

BETWEEN

BILLY WALKER

Appellant

AND

POLICE DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Hearing:	14 September 2018
Appearances:	G Walsh for the Appellant AAR Pell for the Respondent
Judgment:	21 September 2018

JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday 21 September 2018 at 3.45 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:………………………….

Counsel/Solicitors:

G Walsh, Barrister, Hamilton

AAR Pell, Almao Douch, Hamilton

WALKER v POLICE DEPARTMENT [2018] NZHC 2487 [21 September 2018]

Introduction

[1]                   Mr Walker appeals the sentence given by Judge Collin in the Hamilton District Court.1 Mr Walker pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, and one charge of resisting police.2 Judge Collin sentenced Mr Walker to 21 months’ imprisonment.

[2]                   Mr Walker’s appeal is filed out of time, approximately 11 working days late.3 The stated reason is that he was having difficulties contacting his former counsel. He instructed new counsel, Mr Walsh, who filed this appeal. The appellant submits that no prejudice results and that I should extend the time for filing under s 248(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The respondent does not oppose the application. I regard the delay as adequately explained and grant leave accordingly.

The offending

[3]                   Mr Walker and an associate broke into a property on Peachgrove Road, Hamilton (whose occupants were unknown to them), around 7.15 pm on a Saturday in March 2018. Entry was obtained by kicking in the back door, damaging it in the process. They took a number of valuable items, having a total value of approximately

$6,000. They loaded them into their car, which was waiting outside. The police apprehended them as they were leaving. Mr Walker tried to escape, and resisted being captured.

District Court decision

[4]                   Judge Collin began by noting the impact that the offending had had on the victims. They were not at home at the time as they were attending to a family tragedy. The victim impact statement records the crime as a “real kick in the stomach” having regard to this particular circumstance.

[5]                   The Judge identified the aggravating feature of the offending as being that it involved a domestic dwelling by night (when the risk of confrontation is well

1      Walker v Police [2018] NZDC 11005.

2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231, maximum sentence 10 years’ imprisonment; Summary Offences Act 1981, s 23(a), maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.

3      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 248(2).

recognised). His decision also records the fact that the items taken (electronic goods) had “considerable value” and that damage was caused to the home as a result of this forced entry. He adopted a starting point of two years’ imprisonment.

[6]As to aggravating and mitigating features of the offender:

(a)The Judge did not consider there were any mitigating factors, besides the guilty plea, in respect of which the Judge regarded Mr Walker…