Woodmass v Police - [2019] NZHC 2503

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2019-463-74

[2019] NZHC 2503

BETWEEN
CAINE TREVOR LANCE WOODMASS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 1 October 2019

Appearances:

S I Mills for the Appellant

G Banuelos for the Respondent

Judgment:

2 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 October 2019 at 4.00 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors:
Mr S I Mills, Lance Lawson, Rotorua
G Banuelos, Gordon Pilditch, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

WOODMASS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2503 [2 October 2019]

[1]Mr Woodmass appeals against sentence following guilty pleas to charges of:

(a)driving whilst disqualified x5;1

(b)failing to stop x3;2

(c)unlawfully using a motor vehicle x4;3

(d)burglary (under $500);4

(e)wilful damage;5 and

(f)theft under $500.6

[2] He was sentenced on 1 August 2019 by Judge Hollister-Jones in the Rotorua District Court to two years and three months’ imprisonment.

[3] Mr Woodmass appeals on the ground that that the Judge erred by not giving a discount for his youth – Mr Woodmass is 19 years’ old – and as a secondary issue that the starting point for the lead charge of burglary was too high.

Facts

[4] Mr Woodmass had been actively avoiding the Police for a number of months. The Police attempted to apprehend him on a number of occasions, but he managed to flee either on foot or by vehicle.

[5] On 27 June 2018 Mr Woodmass was convicted and sentenced in the Rotorua District Court for being an unlicensed driver who failed to comply with prohibition and failed to stop when followed by red/blue flashing lights. As a result, he was

1      Sections 32(1)(a) and 32(3) of the Land Transport Act 1998, maximum sentence 3 months’ imprisonment.
2      Sections 52A(1)(a) and 52A(4) of the Land Transport Act 1998, maximum sentence $10,000 fine.
3      Section 226(1) of the Crimes Act 1961, maximum sentence 7 years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 231(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961, maximum sentence 10 years' imprisonment.
5      Section 11(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981, maximum sentence 3 months’ imprisonment.
6      Sections 219 and 223(d) of the Crimes Act 1961, maximum sentence 3 months’ imprisonment.

disqualified from driving until 27 March 2019. He was then convicted on 1 October 2018 of driving while disqualified, and the disqualification was extended to 28 September 2019.

[6] The present offending began on 26 December 2018. The defendant was driving a car down Gordon Road in Rotorua. Police pursued him in a patrol car with lights on, but he parked and ran from police.

[7] On 11 January 2019 Police observed the defendant in the driver’s seat of a stationary car. When they pulled up he sped off, driving 80 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. Police pursued him with flashing lights. He drove through a reserve with pedestrians, stopped and ran from Police.

[8] On 16 January 2019…

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 Woodmass 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 2503
Decision Date: 2 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Woodmass v Police concerns the sentence imposed on Mr. Woodmass, who was found guilty of multiple offences including driving while disqualified, failing to stop, unlawful use of a motor vehicle, burglary, wilful damage, and theft. Mr. Woodmass, aged 19 at the time of sentencing, appealed against his sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment, arguing that the District Court Judge erred by not applying a discount for his youth and that the starting point for the lead charge of burglary was too high.

The legal issues before the court were whether the starting point for the burglary charge was appropriately set and whether the Judge erred in not applying a discount for Mr. Woodmass’s youth. The Court examined relevant case law and sentencing principles to determine if the sentence was within an acceptable range and if a youth discount was warranted. The Court concluded that while Mr. Woodmass's underlying personality disorder and gang involvement were significant factors, these did not entirely negate the applicability of a youth discount. The Court found that a youth discount was appropriate, given Mr. Woodmass's age and the nature of his offending, which included impulsive and opportunistic crimes. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to one year and ten months’ imprisonment.

The final orders of the court reflect the reduced sentence, which was imposed as nine and a half months for the burglary charge, 12 and a half months for the unlawful use charges, one month for wilful damage and theft, and two months for the driving while disqualified charges, all to be served concurrently where applicable. This adjustment aims to balance the need for accountability and deterrence while considering Mr. Woodmass's youth and potential for rehabilitation.

Orders