Wilson v Police - [2019] NZHC 2066

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI 2019-476-0014

[2019] NZHC 2066

BETWEEN
EMILY WILSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 22 August 2019

Appearances:

C M Ruane for the Appellant H Bennett for the Respondent

Judgment:

22 August 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

The judgment was delivered by me on 22 August 2019.

……………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
C M Ruane, Barrister Christchurch Crown Solicitors, Timaru

WILSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2066 [22 August 2019]

[1] Ms Wilson, you are appealing your sentence of two years and four months’ imprisonment, imposed by Judge A C Roberts in the District Court at Timaru on 4 April 2019.1 The sentence related to a four-month spree of offending, in continuation of your prior conduct. You appeal that sentence as manifestly excessive, and not taking your personal circumstances into account.

Background

[2] The charging documents are extensive, of offences between 30 August 2018 and 1 January 2019, with a maximum two years’ imprisonment on the driving charges. Other charges attract variously one year, six months, and three month maximum sentences.2 You pleaded guilty to nineteen offences.

[3] Judge Roberts found you were “quickly developing into a prolific professional thief”. He listed your present charges as well as a number of relevant previous convictions and considered, even when subject to sentence, your offending “was business as usual”. The Judge noted your recent clarity from sobriety, and your high motivation to comply, due to you recognising you had responsibilities to your children.

1 Police v Wilson [2019] NZDC 6370.
2 30 August 2018: theft (Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(c): one year); 30 August 2018: possession of pipe or other utensil (Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and (3): one year); 30 August 2018: unlawful possession of police property (Policing Act 2008, s 50: three months); 5 September 2018: theft (Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d): three months); 7 September 2018: careless operation of vehicle (Land Transport Act 1998, s 37: $3,000 fine and disqualification); 7 September 2018: driving under influence of drink or drugs: (Land Transport Act 1998, s 58(1)(b) and (3): two years); 7 September 2018: theft (Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(c): one year); 16 September 2018: breach conditions of community detention (Sentencing Act 2002, s 69G(a): maximum term of six months’ imprisonment); 30 September 2018: theft (Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d): three months); 3 October 2018: theft (Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d): three months); 6 October 2018: theft (Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d): three months); 13 October 2018: driving while impaired (Land Transport Act 1998, s 57A(1) and (3): two years); 6 November 2018: breach conditions of supervision (Sentencing Act 2002, s 70(a): three months); 6 November 2018: failure to answer bail (Bail Act 2000, s 38(b): one year); 27 November 2018: theft (Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d): three months); 28-30 November 2018: theft (Crimes Act…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wilson v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NZHC 2066
Decision Date: 22 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Christchurch Registry, Emily Wilson appealed against her sentence of two years and four months’ imprisonment, imposed by Judge A C Roberts in the District Court at Timaru on 4 April 2019. The sentence related to a four-month spree of offending, in continuation of her prior conduct. She appealed that sentence as manifestly excessive, and not taking her personal circumstances into account. The court needed to determine if there was an error in the sentence, and if a different sentence should be imposed.

The court found that the Judge had regard for Wilson's personal circumstances, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The frequency of her thefts was such as to justify a stern sentence, and a distinct sentence for her non-compliance was also justified. Concurrent sentences were made in relation to fourteen charges, including drug offending. The Judge’s discount, while universally applied, was made taking all those factors into account. Standing back, the court saw nothing to suggest the Judge’s end sentence was ‘out of range’, or ‘manifestly excessive’.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the sentence imposed by the Judge was within the range properly justified by accepted sentencing principles.

Orders