Woods v Police - [2017] NZHC 3093

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2017-425-40 [2017] NZHC 3093

BETWEEN
DANIEL FRANCIS WOODS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 12 December 2017

Appearances:

S G Vidal for the Appellant
R W Donnelly for the Respondent

Judgment:

13 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

Introduction

[1] Between 6 and 16 June 2017, the appellant, Daniel Francis Woods, embarked on a spate of offending which left him facing 12 charges. These included six charges of burglary and one charge each of; unlawfully in a yard, receiving under $500, resisting police, assaulting a police officer, sustained loss of traction, and breach of release conditions.

[2] He pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced in the Invercargill District

Court on 10 August 2017, to two years and seven months’ imprisonment.1

[3] He now appeals his sentence on the basis that:

1 Police v Woods [2017] NZDC 17796.

WOODS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 3093 [13 December 2017]

(a) the original starting point was too high;

(b) the uplift applied for the receiving charge was in error;

(c) the uplifts applied for the other offending were too great; and

(d) in all the circumstances the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

Background to the offending

[4] The offending which resulted in these charges began on 6 June 2017, when the appellant attempted to sell 27 stolen steel wheel rims to a scrap metal dealer in Invercargill.

[5] Between 9 and 17 June 2017, the appellant entered various farm sheds and a workshop, and stole chainsaws, tools, and other farm equipment. Some of these items were recovered, but not all were.

[6] On 10 June 2017, the appellant was stopped by police, because his vehicle number plates had either been removed or obscured. Although he behaved aggressively towards the police, he was permitted to leave after explaining that he had covered his number plates to take photographs in order to sell the vehicle. However, the appellant then drove off in such a way that he caused his tyres to skid and lose traction, and he continued to drive in this manner for a distance up the road. As a consequence, he was again stopped by police and arrested for sustained loss of traction. He then became abusive and uncooperative. When advised that he was going to be handcuffed he threatened to assault the officer. When police then attempted to handcuff him, a scuffle ensued in which one of the police officers sustained minor injuries.

[7] The breach of release conditions charge arose at the time the appellant was arrested for sustained loss of traction, as he was found to have a 15 year old girl in the car with him. At the time he was subject to a release condition not to associate with anyone under the age of 16, following his imprisonment in 2014 for sexual connection with a minor.

The District Court decision

[8] After reciting the facts of the…

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 Woods 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: [2017] NZHC 3093
Decision Date: 13 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daniel Francis Woods appeals against the sentence imposed on him by the District Court. The appellant pleaded guilty to 12 charges including six charges of burglary, receiving under $500, resisting police, assaulting a police officer, sustained loss of traction, and breach of release conditions. He was sentenced to two years and seven months’ imprisonment. The appellant submits that the starting point for the burglary offending should have been in the range of 30 months instead of 33 months, that the uplift applied for the receiving charge was in error, that the uplifts applied for the other offending were too great, and that in all the circumstances the end sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed. The starting point of 33 months adopted here was well within range for this type of offending. The imposition of a three-month uplift for the receiving charge was unjustified. However, this is not the end of the matter. On appeal, the focus must be on whether the end sentence as a whole was manifestly excessive. The other aspects of sentencing do not persuade the Court that the end sentence of two years and seven months was manifestly excessive. An uplift of six months on a starting point of two years and nine months, which reflected a series of separate offences and a reasonably significant relevant criminal history, was not unjustified. The Court agrees with the District Court’s conclusion that the end sentence, viewed as a whole, was not manifestly excessive.

Orders