Wardle v The Queen - [2015] NZHC 915

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-409-20 [2015] NZHC 915

BETWEEN
ADAM DANIEL WARDLE

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Hearing: 29 April 2015

Appearances:

L Denton for the Appellant
K Basire for the Respondent

Judgment:

4 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Background

[1] Mr Wardle appeals against a sentence of two years eight months’ imprisonment on five charges of burglary, one year imprisonment on a charge of possession of instruments for burglary and three months on one charge of receiving and one charge of possession of utensils under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.1 All sentences were concurrent.

[2] Mr Wardle had to apply for leave to bring this appeal out of time. Leave is granted accordingly.2

[3] The events giving rise to the sentencing were summarised by Judge Couch in his Sentencing Indication:3

1      Police v Wardle DC Christchurch CRI-2014-009-3914, 28 July 2014.
2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 248(4); R v Knight [1998] 1 NZLR 583 (CA) at 587 and 589.
3      Police v Wardle DC Christchurch CRI-2014-009-3914, 24 July 2014 [Sentencing Indication]

WARDLE v R [2015] NZHC 915 [4 May 2015]

[2] In chronological order the first set of charges arises out of events which occurred in February this year [(2014)]. In the early hours of the morning the defendant reversed his car up a driveway of a red zone property in Christchurch. He parked in front of an open garage. When disturbed by the police they found stolen property in the vehicle, some of it property which had been stolen in another burglary of a red zone house. That gave rise to the charge of receiving. Being on the property in the circumstances I have described gave rise to the charge of burglary. There was also found in the defendant’s car a bag containing tools for burglary. Finally, there were found to be four bongs in the car and that gave rise to the charge under Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

[3] During March and April the defendant with two others, committed four burglaries of holiday homes in the Marlborough region. There was forcible entry into three of those properties and they located a hidden key for the fourth. In each case the properties were unoccupied. It appears that the defendant and the others stayed in the properties for periods of time, sleeping there and eating the available food. They then stole substantial amounts of property and left. The total amount of property stolen is of the order of
$40,000. Most of that property was subsequently sold at pawn shops in
Nelson and Christchurch.

[4] Mr Wardle was charged with the Christchurch offending on 12 February

2014. He entered not guilty pleas on those charges on 14 March 2014.

[5] Mr Wardle was charged with the Marlborough offences on 5 May 2014. He received a sentence indication for all charges on 24 July 2014, pleaded guilty and was sentenced on those charges on 28 July 2014.

Jurisdiction to appeal

[6] Section 250(2) of…

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 Wardle v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wardle v The Queen [2015] NZHC 915
Case: [2015] NZHC 915
Decision Date: 4 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adam Daniel Wardle has appealed against a sentence of two years eight months’ imprisonment on five charges of burglary, one year on a charge of possession of instruments for burglary and three months on one charge of receiving and one charge of possession of utensils under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The sentences were concurrent. Wardle had to apply for leave to bring this appeal out of time, which was granted. The nature of the dispute concerns whether the sentence imposed by Judge Couch was excessive or whether a different sentence should be imposed, as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The key legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the starting point adopted by the Judge for the burglary offences was too high and whether the Judge had given sufficient credit for the assistance provided by Wardle to the police.

The court reasoned that the starting point adopted by the Judge was at the lower end of the range of sentencing that was appropriate for the offending, and the credits given for guilty pleas and assistance were appropriate. The court considered that there did not have to be a reduction in either the starting point or the ultimate end sentence to achieve parity with the sentencing for Mr Bisset, given the significant difference in culpability of the offenders. The court also considered that the sentence imposed on Mr Bisset for the Marlborough burglaries was inadequate. For these reasons, the court decided that it should not interfere with the sentence imposed on Mr Wardle. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders