Whichman v Police

[2012] NZHC 2697

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2011-404-424 [2012] NZHC 2697

GEORGE WHICHMAN

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         15 October 2012

Counsel:         P Eastwood for the Appellant

W Fotherby for the Respondent

Judgment:      15 October 2012

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors / Counsel:

Mr P Eastwood, Barrister, Auckland

Mr W Fotherby, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland

WHICHMAN V POLICE HC AK CRI-2011-404-424 [15 October 2012]

[1]      Mr Whichman appeals against the longest sentences imposed when sentences were imposed for over 20 offences.  These were dealt with in five sets.  The result was a total end sentence, or an effective end sentence, of 4 years 3 months imprisonment.

[2]      The sentences were imposed on 4 March 2011.   The matter has taken this long to get to a hearing on the appeal for a number of reasons, which I do not need to go into in any great detail.  However, I think the initial problem may have been that some of the sentences resulted from charges laid summarily and some more charges laid indictably.  In the first instance it seems that Mr Whichman lodged an appeal on his own behalf and lodged it with the Court of Appeal.   That took a while to be sorted out and the difficulties compounded over time.

[3]      The sentences were dealt with in two sentencing decisions of Judge Winter.1

One was for the charges that had been laid summarily and the other for the charges that had been laid indictably.   I will outline the offences and some of the relevant facts broadly in the sequence in which the Judge dealt with them.

Summary charge of burglary – CRN 10004020364

[4]      The facts were recorded by the Judge as follows:

[3]       … [At] about 2.50 pm on Friday 18 June 2010 the defendant made his way to the property, gained entry by smashing the front door handle, breaking the lock and door, entered the house, tipped it up particularly in the living area, study, bedrooms and drawers.  Whilst in the house he uplifted jewellery, an LCD television, a video recorder and a black leather handbag containing a driver’s licence and credit and bank cards.

[4]       A scene examination by the police, forensics division, located blood on an internal doorframe that linked the defendant to the offending.   The defendant made no previous comment but, having taken instruction, pleaded guilty.

[5]      He then said, in assessing the sentence:

1 R v Whichman DC Manukau CRI-2010-092-010761, 4 March 2011 and R v Whichman DC Manukau

CRI-2010-029-001128, 4 March 2011.

[6]       I keep in mind the learned guidance from the decision of R v Senior (2000) 18 CRNZ 340.   Clearly, Mr Wichman [sic], bearing in mind his previous history which is admitted and including additional burglaries which are shortly to be the subject of this indictable sentencing for which he has already pleaded guilty, is a recidivist burglar.   Recidivist burglars have a starting point of imprisonment of three years.  From that might be deducted some time for his plea.  I am prepared to accept that that plea was entered at the earliest opportunity, he having received advice from counsel and so I would give him a 25 percent deduction which leaves an available sentence then of two years and two months’ imprisonment.

The other summary charges

[6]      The other charges laid summarily were, in relative terms, reasonably minor offences.  These were disorderly behaviour, failing to stop, dangerous driving, giving a false name, driving while disqualified, threatening behaviour, one offence of receiving and being unlawfully in a building.  The Judge imposed a sentence of 9 months for the receiving offence.   Lesser sentences or discharges resulted for the other offences and disqualification for some of the driving offences. These sentences were concurrent with the burglary sentence discussed above. All of the sentences for the summary offences were concurrent with the sentences for the indictable charges, to which I now turn.

Indictable offences

[7]      All of the serious offences arose out of events on 26 July 2010 when Mr Whichman left Auckland with his then partner, other adults and two young children. They travelled to Northland.   During the trip two offences occurred which were originally charged as burglary but are now to be treated as receiving, for reasons I will come to.   There was an attempted sale of cannabis in Kohukohu, which is a small town on the north side of the Hokianga Harbour.   It culminated in Mr Whichman crashing his car numerous times on the Kohukohu car ferry while dragging a police officer along the ferry deck.  He then drove away and crashed the car.   Before being arrested he attempted to steal two other cars.   When Mr Whichman’s crashed car was searched Police found 36 cannabis tinnies.  For most of the trip Mr Whichman was accompanied by his then partner and children.  A rifle

case  and  shotgun  were  found  in  the  BMW which  led  to  a  charge  of  unlawful possession of a firearm.

[8]      Mr Whichman originally appealed against conviction as well as sentence.  He contended that he did not commit two burglaries to which he had earlier pleaded guilty.   This followed discussions between the Police or the Crown and defence counsel, which led to some charges being reduced.  After the appeal was lodged the Crown agreed to amend the two charges of burglary to charges of receiving.  These substituted offences are referred to in a minute of Woolford J dated 31 August 2012. The Judge in the District Court did proceed on the basis that he was dealing with burglary charges, and I am satisfied there can be no criticism of him for doing so. The amended receiving charges are one involving a value of $800 and one to a value of $4,000, including computer equipment and jewellery.

[9]      The Judge dealt with the indictable offences in three groups and I will do the same for the purposes of describing the background.

Indictable group one – aggravated assault: CRN 10029000895

[10]     The facts of this offence were briefly touched on above.  It is appropriate to set the facts out in greater detail.   In my judgment this offence should, for the purposes of this appeal, be treated as the lead offence.  I will come to the reasons for doing so.

[11]     Constable Maoate was a sole charge constable in Kohukohu. A resident came to him and told the constable that a man had tried to sell the resident some cannabis. This was an unsolicited approach.   The resident told Constable Maoate that the person – who turned out to be Mr Whichman – appeared to be under the influence of alcohol and drugs.  The constable went to investigate.   The subsequent events are recorded in the Judge’s summary of the facts as follows:

[14]     [Constable Maoate] travelled along Kohukohu Road towards the Narrows Ferry Landing.  At some point on this journey he came across you sitting in the driver’s seat of the BMW.  It appeared you had been involved in a vehicle crash and had recently been towed back onto the road.   The constable tried to speak to you to check if you were well and to enquire

about the alleged attempt to sell cannabis.  He noticed that you appeared to be affected or intoxicated by something, alcohol or drugs he was not sure, but what he was sure about was that you were extremely agitated.  He then saw the unrestrained child in the rear of the BMW, concerned for the child’s safety and your state, the constable told you to remain where you were so that he could speak with you.  …

[15]     The constable had activated his red and blue flashing lights by then and turned his vehicle around.   As he was doing so he noticed that you immediately accelerated away in your BMW and commenced driving back along Kohukohu  Road  towards the  township.   The constable  turned his vehicle around on a nearby driveway with his red and blue flashing lights going and activated his siren.  He radioed the communication centre that he was in pursuit. All of this distracted the constable and he lost sight of you in your car as you approached the township.  It is clear that you failed to stop for the red and blue flashing lights.   That is what generates that charge against you.

[16]      In any event, the constable drove on to a rugby ground and swept the area with his headlights in an attempt to find you.  He was unsuccessful and travelled across the road to a small no exit metal road named Tauteiihihi Road.  The constable drove a short distance up the road coming across your vehicle again. At that time you were travelling back down that road towards the Kohukohu Road.   Again the constable reactivated his lights and siren indicating for you to stop, but you accelerated and swerved towards the constable’s car, colliding with the front bull bar area and then accelerated off into Kohukohu Road.  The constable pursued you.  He caught up with you and found that you had parked on the Kohukohu Ferry which traverses the Hokianga Harbour between Kohukohu on one side and Rawene on the other. There were two other cars on board that ferry.

[17]      The constable drove onto the car ferry and parked behind you to stop you fleeing from him.  He got out of his vehicle and came up to you.  The constable’s obvious intention at that stage was to arrest you for failing to stop  and  to  further  investigate  the  other  matters  that  had  come  to  his attention. As the constable approached the BMW on that ferry, you reversed into the front of the constable’s vehicle causing damage, again to the front right-hand side bull bar.  The constable then used his police torch to smash the driver’s side window of your BMW to arrest you.   He then reached through the window and grabbed hold of you, telling you, you were under arrest.  He also told you to stop before you killed someone.  You reacted by accelerating forward dragging the constable along the ferry deck.   The constable punched you a number of times in the head to no effect.   The constable punched you because he was concerned that he needed to bring your dangerous driving situation to a safe conclusion.  Your vehicle crashed into the front portside of the ferry railing. The constable then grabbed you in a headlock and attempted to pull you out of the vehicle.   However, you would have none of that and you reversed your vehicle.   The constable continued to plead with you to stop and advised you again about the risk you posed to others. These facts so far lead to the dangerous driving charge.

[18]      At this point the front passenger side of your vehicle collided with a ferry support pole.  In the process of the vehicle reversing the constable was thrown then from the vehicle onto the deck.   He regained his footing, but you accelerated off the ferry and inland towards Panguru along the West

Coast Road.   You travelled approximately three kilometres before losing control and crashing into the right-hand side of the road into the bushes.  At this point you left your car, flagged down a passing motorist and asked the driver to take you back towards Kohukohu, which the driver did.

[19]      As  a  result  of  the  incidents  that  I  have  just  …  described,  the constable received cuts to his right hand and elbow, bruising and lacerations to his knee and tenderness in the stomach area.  These events have led to the charge against you of aggravated assault against him.

[12]     In assessing the sentence for the aggravated assault as the lead offence in group one, the Judge took a starting point of 2 years imprisonment.  He then imposed three  uplifts,  each  of  3  months,  for  disqualified  driving  (third  or  subsequent), unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawfully taking a car (after the aggravated assault).  This produced what may be called an aggravated or uplifted starting point of 2 years 9 months.

Indictable group two – cannabis: CRN 10029000971 and CRN 10029000964

[13]     These are the cannabis offences which occurred on the same day; possession of 36 tinnies for the purpose of supply and offering to sell some cannabis to the person in Kohukohu.  The Judge proceeded on the basis of the tariffs in Terewi.2   He fixed a starting point of 2 years for possession for supply and increased that by 6 months for offering to sell cannabis.  This, of course, is a total of 2 years 6 months, although later the Judge took it as a total of 2 years before making other adjustments.

Indictable group three – receiving x2 (formerly burglary): CRN 10029000966 and CRN 10029000969

[14]     The Judge took one of the burglaries as the lead offence.  He fixed what he called an aggravated starting point of 2 years for the burglary on the basis that Mr Whichman is a recidivist burglar, as described in Senior.3    He increased this to 2 years 6 months for the other burglary, unlawfully entering a building, receiving and

theft.

2 R v Terewi [1999] 3 NZLR 62 (CA).

3 Senior v Police (2000) 18 CRNZ 340.

[15]     The Judge then assessed a provisional uplifted or aggravated starting point for all of the indictable offences by adding the total of 2 years 9 months for the group one offences, 2 years for the group 2 (cannabis) offences and 2 years 6 months for the group 3 offences.  He calculated a total of 6 years 7 months.  Arithmetically it in fact comes to 7 years 3 months, so there was a benefit to Mr Whichman from an error which plainly occurred in the course of dealing with a complicated sentencing towards the end of a busy day.

[16]     The Judge reduced the total of 6 years 7 months by 25% to allow for the guilty pleas, with this being assessed as the maximum in accordance with Hessell.4

This  produced  a  rounded  sentence  of  5  years  imprisonment.    The  Judge  then deducted  a  further  9  months  –  a  combination  of producing  the least  restrictive outcome,  personal  factors and  totality.   The personal  factors  reflected  a careful assessment of these matters by the Judge earlier in his judgment.

[17]     The end  sentence on  this  approach  was  therefore 4  years and  3  months imprisonment.  This was imposed for one of the group three burglaries, which is now an offence of receiving.   The sentences for all of the offending, including the summary offences, were concurrent.

Personal factors

[18]     Mr Whichman was born in December 1989.  He was therefore aged 20 at the date of the offending in July 2010.

[19]     For a 20 year old at that time, Mr Whichman had a reasonably substantial number of previous convictions.   However, and with due respect to the learned Judge, the picture is not in my judgment as bleak as the Judge suggested, particularly in relation to burglary.  Mr Whichman was described as a recidivist burglar, but there were only two previous burglaries, one in 2009 and one in 2007.   There are five

previous convictions for what may be described as violent offending, but this ranges

4 R v Hessell [2010] 2 NZLR 298 (SC).

from common assault to aggravated assault.  One of these was an offence dealt with in the Youth Court.  There was also an offence of aggravated robbery dealt with in the Youth Court in 2005.   There are, by my count, 20 other types of property offences including shoplifting, and seven of these were dealt with in the Youth Court.

Submissions

[20]     The heart of Mr Eastwood’s submission for Mr Whichman is that an end sentence of 4 years and 3 months for all of this offending, in respect of a man aged just over 20 at the time, is manifestly excessive by whatever process one uses to assess appropriate sentences for all of this offending.  Mr Eastwood also submitted that, although the Judge could have approached the matter by imposing some cumulative sentences, the way in which the Judge approached it here was erroneous; that is to say, adding together three sets of sentences and then applying the total to one offence.  That is a very abbreviated summary, but I believe it fairly captures the essence.

[21]     For the Crown Mr Fotherby provided helpful and careful written submissions which were expanded on and, to an extent, modified in the course of discussions with me.  He accepted that, because of a number of matters which have arisen in this case, including the change of burglary charges to receiving, it is most appropriate to take the aggravated assault on the constable as the lead offence, and then to assess an overall sentence for all offending having fixed a starting point for the aggravated assault.

[22]     It is not in issue in respect of the allowance for guilty pleas that, if Mr Whichman is entitled to the maximum, then it should be the 33% which applied before the Supreme Court’s decision in Hessell.5    This is because Mr Whichman entered his guilty pleas before that decision was delivered.  I am in agreement with

the submissions of both counsel in that regard: see Hopwood6 and Vaine.7

5 R v Hessell [2010] 2 NZLR 298 (SC).

6 Hopwood v R [2011] NZCA 351.

7 Vaine v R [2011[ NZCA 283.

[23]     I will briefly discuss the appropriate starting point for the lead offences in each  group  of the  indictable charges  before considering the appropriate way to review the central issues on appeal.   It is necessary effectively to reconstruct a sentence for a number of reasons, some of which have been touched on.   These include, in particular: the burglary offences are now receiving offences; there could not be an end sentence of 4 years 3 months for one burglary offence (and which is now one receiving offence); aggregating different sentences in order to arrive at one maximum sentence for one offence causes difficulties; in the case of the cannabis offences, for reasons I will come to, the maximum sentence could only be imprisonment of 1 year.

[24]     In the group one indictable offences the aggravated assault was undoubtedly the lead offence.  And I regard it for the purposes of this appeal as the lead offence for all of the offending.

[25]     The gravity of this offending in general terms, being offending against a police officer in the execution of his duty, was discussed by the Court of Appeal in R v Thomas8 as follows:

[31]      … This Court in R v Williams (CA177/96, 20 August 1996) referred to the particularly aggravating nature of attacks on police officers acting in the execution of their duty. At p4 the Court said:

… Law enforcement officers, by the very nature of their duty requiring them to investigate suspicious circumstances, are particularly vulnerable to attack.   This has consistently been recognised by the Courts. In R v Walker (CA39/90, 22 May 1990) this Court referred to the earlier case of R v McKay (CA307/84, 3

April 1985) where this Court said:

“This Court has on a number of occasions taken into account the special position of police officers who in this country are unarmed. In R v Simon, Barbarich, Roberts and White (CA

70-73/68, 22 October 1968) this Court said:

“... in New Zealand ... we take pride in the fact that our police officers, in the performance of their ordinary  duties,  are  unarmed  ...  but  it  must  be

understood that because our police officers are unarmed when on ordinary duties, the Courts will take a very serious view indeed of an attack made by anyone - whether he be an escaped prisoner or not - on a police officer, particularly so when the attack is a brutal one as was the position here.

In   our   opinion   it   would   be   harmful   to   the maintenance of that principle if we took any step in the way of reducing the sentences in this case ...”

More recently in R v Bryant [1980] 1 NZLR 264, a case involving very severe assaults on two police officers, this Court said:

“No community can or will permit the use of such a weapon  (a  hammer)  upon  an  unarmed  constable doing his conscientious best to discharge his responsibilities.””

We agree with these observations. Where an attack is made on a police officer, what may otherwise have been considered to be an appropriate sentence should be increased to take into account this feature. Only in this way can the Courts do what it can to protect police officers acting in the course of their duty.

[26]     Two other cases that I have noted are Waaka9  and Tuiletufuga.10     Having regard to the facts of this offending and the broad statements in the other cases I am satisfied that the starting point of 2 years fixed by the Judge in this case was well within range; that is to say, it is not manifestly excessive with the focus at this point being solely on the starting point.

[27]     For the cannabis offending – the Judge’s indictable group two – he proceeded on the basis that the maximum penalty for each of the offences was 8 years imprisonment.  It is on that basis that the Terewi11 bands were applied.  However, as I pointed out to counsel, although the charges were laid indictably, Mr Whichman pleaded guilty in the District Court before committal.   As a consequence the maximum penalty for each of these offences is imprisonment of 1 year: see R v

Hoe.12

9 R v Waaka CA30/05, 19 May 2005.

10 R v Tuiletugua CA205/03, 25 September 2003.
11 R v Terewi [1999] 3 NZLR 62 (CA).

12 R v Hoe [2001] 2 NZLR 633 (CA).

[28]     In addition, although the offer of the cannabis to the stranger in Kohukohu is technically a distinct offence, it is in large measure part and parcel of the possession of the greater quantity of cannabis for the purposes of supply.  In my judgment an appropriate starting point, plus an uplift for the offering, would be 10 months imprisonment, which is close to the maximum.

[29]     In the indictable group three, as already discussed, the burglary charge taken by the Judge as the lead offence is now an offence of receiving. A starting point of 2 years imprisonment, at least for two burglaries, may not be manifestly excessive. But it is, of course, now necessary to treat these offences as ones of receiving.  One charge involved receiving property to a value of $4,000.  The maximum penalty is 7 years imprisonment.   The Judge adopted 12 months for the summary charge of receiving.   For this charge, laid indictably, the starting point should be at least 12 months.

[30]     If those adjusted starting points are added together in the way in which the Judge approached the matter it would produce a total of 46 months imprisonment – that is to say 3 years and 10 months – compared with the end sentence of 4 years and

3 months calculated by the Judge.   However, I am satisfied that it is not open to impose an effective sentence of 3 years and 10 months unless there are to be cumulative sentences.  In that regard I am also satisfied that this is not a case where I should depart from the Judge’s approach, which was to impose concurrent sentences for all of the offending.

[31]     There is also the sentence imposed for the burglary charge laid summarily. The Judge’s approach is earlier recorded.  He fixed what he described as a starting point of 3 years.  This in fact takes account of Mr Whichman’s previous offending and other offences still to be sentenced in the indictable group.  In other words, there were  two  lots  of  uplift  in  arriving  at  the  3  years.    There  are  some  different approaches to what are described as starting points for burglary.  This is discussed by

the Court of Appeal in Columbus.13   In my respectful opinion this approach, although

followed in practice often enough, can lead to difficulties, but it is inappropriate to

say anything more on this appeal.   In my judgment the true starting point for the burglary charge laid summarily would be around 15 months imprisonment.

[32]     I  come  now  to  the  final  assessment  against  a  background  which  has necessarily been reasonably lengthy.   In recording my assessment I acknowledge what I have also adverted to – the fact that the Judge was dealing with two separate and complicated sets of offending with much of it having to be dealt with towards the end of the day in what was no doubt a busy court. And some of the matters that I have drawn to the attention of counsel on this appeal were not drawn to the Judge’s attention on sentencing.

[33]     As  earlier  noted  I  am  satisfied  that  the  Judge’s  approach  of  concurrent sentences should be applied for the purposes of this appeal, but with a necessary reassessment treating the aggravated assault as the lead offence.  The Judge’s starting point of 24 months imprisonment for the aggravated assault should be adopted. There is need for an uplift to take account of all of the other offending that was being dealt with at that time.  A further uplift of 24 months is a high uplift.  In discussing this with counsel Mr Fotherby, in particular, did not seek to argue that the uplift for other offending on which sentences were to be imposed should be more than that. There  needs  to  be  a  further  uplift  for  Mr Whichman’s  previous  offences.    Mr Fotherby, as I understood him, submitted that it should be of the order of 12 months. I have outlined the previous offences.  They cannot be ignored, but I do consider that the maximum uplift that is required for the purposes of the present offending is 6 months.  That is a total of 54 months imprisonment before making any deductions for personal factors.

[34]     I  am  satisfied  that  there  should  be  a  reduction  of  9  months  for  Mr Whichman’s youth and for what, as best as one can judge these things, is now genuine remorse.  There is also, as best as can be assessed at this point, a genuine desire to try and make a real effort to stop offending.   At the beginning of this hearing I received two letters from Mr Whichman.  He has acknowledged the harm he has caused in all sorts of ways and recorded, in his own words, what is encapsulated in the word remorse.  And he has expressed in his letters a desire to seek to rehabilitate himself.   He has advised that on release he is determined to

attend  a residential  rehabilitation  centre.    I took  the opportunity to  discuss  this directly with Mr Whichman.   I told him that these are not things that are easily assessed and they are things that are easy for a person facing sentence, or appealing against a sentence, to say.  I have already used this expression but repeat: as best as I can judge I am satisfied that the expressions of remorse, including the understanding of the harm done to other people, and the desire to rehabilitate, are genuine.  I hope that that is the case.

[35]     I will allow a reduction of 9 months for these factors.  In the nature of these things that is a reasonably substantial reduction.

[36]     In addition, Mr Whichman is entitled to a further reduction of 33% for the guilty pleas which were entered to all intends and purposes at the earliest reasonable opportunity.  The Court of Appeal in Hessell has pointed out that the allowance for guilty pleas is an allowance distinct from any allowance made for personal factors such as remorse and recognition of harm and expressed willingness to rehabilitate. Nevertheless,  the  entry  of  the  guilty  pleas  tends  to  assist  in  reinforcing  the assessment of whether the expressions of remorse are genuine.

[37]     The end result is a maximum sentence of 30 months; that is to say 2 years and 6 months.  I will impose that sentence by allowing the appeal for the offence of aggravated assault.  I note that the maximum penalty that could be imposed for the aggravated assault is 3 years imprisonment.

[38]     All other sentences that require adjustment will be adjusted appropriately. That applies principally to the other lead offences that I have discussed.  I will record those adjustments in the written version of this judgment.   In the unusual circumstances of this case leave is reserved to counsel to apply for any further amendment that may be required if these adjustments give rise to any technical difficulties.  All of these further sentences, including any that are not adjusted, will be concurrent.

Result

[39]   The result is that the total effective sentence is 2 years and 6 months imprisonment. That is the result of the appeal.

[40]     As will be apparent from comments made a short while ago, Mr Whichman has been present throughout this appeal.   I conclude these comments by recording once again my sincere hope that what he says are things that he will seriously follow up on.  I think it is also appropriate to record that he has, on this appeal and the result of it, been given a real opportunity to turn his life around.  In that regard I note that members of his family have been in Court to support him and I hope that they can continue to offer that support.

Addendum

[41] This is an addition to the oral judgment for the purposes noted above at [38]. [42] The appeal is allowed by quashing the sentences imposed for the following

offences and substituting the sentence recorded:

(a)       CRN 10029000895: Crimes Act 1961, s 192(1)(c): aggravated assault:

imprisonment 2 years 6 months.

(b)      CRN 10029000971: Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(3);

possession of cannabis for supply: imprisonment 10 months.

(c)       CRN 10029000964: Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(e) and 6(3):

offering to sell cannabis to a person over the age of 18: imprisonment

2 months.

(d)CRN 10029000966 and CRN 10029000969: Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and 247: receiving: imprisonment, on each, 9 months.

(e)       CRN   10004020364:   Crimes   Act   1961,   s   231(1)(a):   burglary:

imprisonment 18 months.

(f)      CRN 1002900899: Arms Act 1983, s 45: unlawful possession of a firearm on 26 July 2010: imprisonment 12 months.

(g)CRN 10029000897: Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(4): driving  while  disqualified  on  26  July 2010  (third  or  subsequent): imprisonment 12 months.

I note that the sentence recorded in the Ministry of Justice criminal and traffic history records an end sentence of 2 years 9 months.  This is 9 months more than the maximum that could be imposed.

(h)      CRN 1009201544: Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d): theft on 16

July 2010: imprisonment 12 months.

[43]     The Ministry of Justice criminal and traffic history as at 15 October 2012 still records one of the 26 July 2010 receiving offences as a burglary.  This is the eighth

entry for the sentences imposed on 4 March 2011.  It must be amended.

Woodhouse J