Warren v Police HC Greymouth CRI-2011-418-000007 - [2011] NZHC 1828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2011-418-000007

CRI-2011-418-000149

LEROY ROBERT WARREN

v

POLICE

Hearing: 17 November 2011 (Heard at Christchurch)

Appearances: E Bradley for Appellant
N M Robson for Respondent

Judgment: 17 November 2011

ORAL JUDGMENT OF HON JUSTICE FRENCH

[1] Following pleas of guilty, the appellant, Mr Leroy Warren, was convicted and sentenced in the District Court on two charges: one of aggravated burglary and the other, Crimes Act 1961 assault.

[2] He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months.

Facts of the offending

[3] In the early hours of 15 April 2011 Mr Warren went to the victim’s home address with five associates. Mr Warren believed that the victim had stolen his cannabis. Two females in the group knocked on the door and were let in by the
victim. After talking to him, the two women left, leaving the door to the victim’s

WARREN V POLICE HC GRY CRI-2011-418-000007 17 November 2011

bedroom open. Almost immediately, Mr Warren entered the room with his brother. He then started shouting abuse and threats.

[4] There was, as the Judge described it, an exercise in abusing the victim, knocking him around and searching his room. The victim was unable to defend himself, being trapped beneath the bedclothes. Mr Warren dragged the victim from the bed and then picked up one of the drawers that had been pulled out in the process of the search. Mr Warren hit the victim over the head with the drawer with such force that the drawer broke into its component parts. Undaunted, Mr Warren then picked up a second drawer and used it to hit the victim again. This was described in the summary as a solid blow across the victim’s upraised defensive arm. Mr Warren attempted to strike the victim a third time, but fortunately was restrained by his brother.

[5] As a result of the assault, the victim suffered abrasions and bruising to his head, arms, neck and legs. He was said to be extremely sore. He was assessed and treated at the local hospital and then discharged later that same morning.

The sentencing in the District Court

[6] The information before the District Court Judge included a pre-sentence report. The report told the Judge that Mr Warren is 20 years of age with 12 previous convictions, most of which had alcohol as their genesis. The previous convictions included two involving violence.

[7] On the positive side, the report stated Mr Warren was employed, expressing motivation to address his alcohol issues and enjoyed the support of his family.

[8] The report concluded by saying that, should the Court find itself able to fall short of imposing a term of imprisonment, a sentence of community detention was recommended purely because it would enable Mr Warren to retain his employment. A sentence of community work was also recommended.

[9] In addition to the pre-sentence report, the Judge was provided with a number of references. These spoke highly of Mr Warren.

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 Warren v Police HC Greymouth CRI-2011-418-000007

Details

AGLC: Warren v Police HC Greymouth CRI-2011-418-000007 [2011] NZHC 1828
Case: [2011] NZHC 1828
Decision Date: 17 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerns the conviction and sentence of Leroy Robert Warren for aggravated burglary and assault, which he pleaded guilty to. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment by the District Court. The appellant, represented by E Bradley, argued that the District Court Judge should have imposed home detention instead of imprisonment. The respondent, represented by N M Robson, argued that the sentence was appropriate. The primary legal issue was whether the District Court Judge erred in imposing imprisonment instead of home detention, considering factors such as the appellant's age, rehabilitative needs, and the least restrictive outcome. The High Court held that the District Court Judge had implicitly taken these factors into account but ultimately concluded that the seriousness of the offending and the appellant's criminal history warranted a custodial sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence was confirmed.

Orders