Wilkinson v Police - [2016] NZHC 1845

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI 2016-454-25 [2016] NZHC 1845

BETWEEN
CODI JARMEN WILKINSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 2 August 2016

Counsel:

P Murray for Appellant
M J Blaschke for Respondent

Judgment:

9 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF BROWN J

Introduction

[1] On 13 May 2016 the appellant was sentenced by Judge J D Large in the District Court Dannevirke to a total of three years, three months’ imprisonment after he had pleaded guilty to the following six offences:

(a) assault with intent to injure;1

(b) two charges of receiving over $1,000;2

(c) receiving under $500;3

(d) burglary;4

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 193: Maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
2      Sections 246 and 247(a): Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 246 and 247(c): Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
4      Section 231: Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

WILKINSON v NZ POLICE [2016] NZHC 1845 [9 August 2016]

(e) possession of a knife in a public place;5

[2] The appellant appeals against the length of the sentence contending that it was manifestly excessive.

Circumstances of the offending

[3] The six charges fall into two groupings. On 28 June 2015 the appellant became involved in an argument over parking on the main street of Dannevirke. After the driver of the other car got out of his vehicle, the appellant punched him in the head several times until he fell to the ground. The victim received two fractures to his face and required extensive stitching, and surgery for the fractures. The appellant pleaded guilty to assaulting the victim with intent to injure him, reduced from the original charge of injuring with intent to injure.

[4] Over 17 and 18 November 2015 there were four burglaries of rural residential addresses on the outskirts of Taradale. The appellant pleaded guilty to receiving property stolen from three of those burglaries ($8,115, $7,000 and $450 values) and to burglary in respect of a fourth. The circumstances of that fourth charge were that the appellant jemmied open a side window of the garage which provided access to the house. The appellant took numerous household items from almost every room in the house including jewellery of $10,000 in value, ₤1,800 and a new Mercedes Benz. The stolen items were packed into the car.

[5] The appellant was arrested on 19 November when he endeavoured to exchange the sterling for New Zealand currency. When arrested the appellant was in possession of two knives, along with the various items of stolen property. The second set of offending was committed whilst the appellant was on bail for the
injuring charge.

5 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 13A: Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a $1,000
fine.

[6] The appellant pleaded guilty to amended charges in respect of the first incident on the morning of his Judge alone trial in the Dannevirke District Court, and to the second set of charges on the morning of his Judge alone trial in the Napier District Court. The three…

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 Wilkinson v Police

Details

AGLC: Wilkinson v Police [2016] NZHC 1845
Case: [2016] NZHC 1845
Decision Date: 9 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Codi Jarmen Wilkinson, was sentenced to a total of three years and three months' imprisonment by Judge J D Large in the District Court Dannevirke after pleading guilty to multiple charges including assault with intent to injure, receiving over $1,000, receiving under $500, burglary, possession of a knife in a public place, and related offences. The appellant appealed against the length of the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the starting point for the burglary charge was too high, whether the appellant's remorse and offer to participate in restorative justice should have been taken into account, whether the discount for the appellant's guilty pleas was insufficient, and whether the total period of imprisonment was disproportionate to the gravity of the overall offending.

The court found that while the starting point for the burglary was within the appropriate range, a modest discount for the appellant's remorse and a larger discount for the guilty pleas would have been appropriate. However, the court concluded that the sentence imposed, despite these adjustments, was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

The final orders were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders