Williams v Police

[2018] NZHC 732

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2018-409-000003

[2018] NZHC 732

BETWEEN

TONY JOHN WILLIAMS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:	19 April 2018
Appearances:	D Goldwater for the Appellant S J Mallett for the Crown
Judgment:	19 April 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

Introduction

[1]    On 8 December  2017,  the  appellant  was  sentenced  to  two  years  and  two months’ imprisonment, having pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary.1 He now appeals this sentence, arguing that the starting point was too high and the Judge should have given him further discounts.

Background facts

[2]    At the time of the offending, the appellant had been employed by Armourguard security for two and a half years. As part of his role, he regularly re-stocked an ASB ATM in a laundromat shop in Rolleston. To allow that, he was provided with various keys and alarm codes needed to access the machine through that shop.

1      Police v Williams [2017] NZDC 28197.

WILLIAMS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 732 [19 April 2018]

[3]    The appellant devised a plan to steal the money inside the ATM. He told the pre-sentence report writer that he had carefully selected that ATM because of the laundromat’s relatively limited security set-up. He memorised the access codes and chose a time when the ATM would contain a significant amount of money.

[4]    At 2.07 am on Saturday, 21 January 2017, the appellant gained unauthorised access to the laundromat. He disarmed the alarm and unlocked the ATM. He removed

$179,300 from the machine. He then fled the laundromat, leaving the rear of the ATM open. He resigned from his role at Armourguard three days later.

[5]    Armourguard conducted an internal investigation, as did the Police. When spoken to by the Police, the appellant admitted he was responsible. He showed the Police where he had buried $130,000 in his garden, and a further $10,000 in his home. In total, $141,331.90 was recovered. The remaining $37,818.10 was later repaid by the appellant on the day of his sentencing, thanks to help from his family.

District Court decision

[6]    The Judge noted that the appellant had a limited conviction history. His three prior convictions were in 2007 and did not involve dishonesty. While not aggravating the current offending, it meant the appellant was not entitled to a discount for previous good character.

[7]    The Judge also noted that the report-writer could not discern any real remorse in the appellant for the victims of his offending, which included his co-workers. The appellant blamed his offending on his issues with alcohol. However, the Judge agreed with the report-writer who did not consider alcohol use to be a factor in this offending as the appellant was not intoxicated at the time of the offending. Rather, it was a well-planned heist.

[8]    The Judge noted that Armourguard had suffered further loss from the theft. At the time, he said, it had to pay a $25,000…