White v Police - [2020] NZHC 1535

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2020-425-000009

CRI-2020-425-000010 [2020] NZHC 1535

BETWEEN
JAKE JAMES WHITE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 29 June 2020

Appearances:

K E Tohill for Appellant

R W Donnelly for Respondent

Judgment:

2 July 2020

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 July 2020 at 11.00 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date 2 July 2020

Introduction

[1] Jake White pleaded guilty to three breaches of a protection order as well as charges of receiving stolen property and unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle. He was sentenced by Judge Turner to two and a half years’ imprisonment.1 Mr White now appeals that sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive.

1 Police v White [2020] NZDC 6094.

WHITE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 1535 [2 July 2020]

Facts

[2] A temporary protection order was issued against Mr White on 1 June 2018 in respect of the victim, who is his former partner and the mother of his child. That order became final on 5 October 2018.

[3]On 16 October 2019, Mr White sent the following text message to the victim:

I will make sure my suicide note will make people look at you and make your life hell as you struggle as a single mum that drove your baby’s dad end it and take the ezy way out.

[4] On 7 December 2019, while remanded in Milton Prison, Mr White arranged for a text message to be sent to the victim saying she would receive a phone call from the prison. The victim replied that she would not answer. The following morning, the victim received two phone calls from the Milton area. She did not answer either. Later in the day she received a text saying “Jake asked if you could please answer”, and four minutes later she answered a call without realising it was from Mr White. They spoke for about 12 minutes before the victim ended the call.

[5] The third protection order breach arose when Mr White, on 4 April 2020, arranged for his father to contact the victim to make arrangements for him to see his child. Mr White’s father sent an email to the victim on 6 April relaying his message.

[6] Between 2 and 3 October 2019, a caravan was stolen from a property in Cromwell. In the early hours of 3 October, Mr White and an associate drove to a layby on the Cromwell/Alexandra highway and met up with two people who were in possession of the stolen caravan. Mr White attached the caravan to his car before driving south towards Roxburgh. The caravan has not been recovered.

[7] At around 3.30 am on 3 October, Mr White realised his vehicle had a flat tyre. He entered the driveway of a nearby property where he opened an unlocked door of a parked car. He…

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 White v Police

Details

AGLC: White v Police [2020] NZHC 1535
Case: [2020] NZHC 1535
Decision Date: 2 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Jake White pleaded guilty to three breaches of a protection order, receiving stolen property, and unlawfully entering a motor vehicle. He appealed the sentence of two and a half years' imprisonment, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was within the range that could properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles or if it was manifestly excessive and not justified. The court considered the starting points and uplifts applied for each offence, including the three breaches of the protection order, receiving a stolen caravan, and unlawfully entering a vehicle. The appellant's counsel argued the starting points for the protection order breaches were too high, while the respondent's counsel submitted the starting points were appropriate. The court found the starting points for the receiving and unlawful entry charges were within range, but the starting point for the first protection order breach should have been 12 months rather than 14 months. The court also found the uplifts for the second and third breaches were excessive and the total uplift for offending while on sentence and on bail or in custody was a little high. Based on its analysis, the court substituted the sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment with a sentence of two years and two months' imprisonment.

The court set aside the sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment and substituted it with a sentence of two years and two months' imprisonment. In all other respects, the sentence was unaltered.

Orders