Woodstock v R
[2020] NZCA 472
•5 October 2020 at 9.30 am
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA144/2020 [2020] NZCA 472 |
| BETWEEN | KIERAN AARON WOODSTOCK |
| AND | THE QUEEN |
| Hearing: | 24 August 2020 |
Court: | Gilbert, Thomas and Dunningham JJ |
Counsel: | J D Lucas for Appellant |
Judgment: | 5 October 2020 at 9.30 am |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
BThe appeal against sentence is allowed.
CThe sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment on the charge of aggravated robbery is set aside. A sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment is substituted. This is to be served cumulatively on the sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment imposed for the 2017 offending. The other sentences imposed in the District Court are confirmed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Gilbert J)
Mr Woodstock pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated robbery, one charge of burglary, two charges of unlawful possession of a firearm and one charge of failing to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search. This offending took place in late January 2019 (the 2019 offending), about a week after Mr Woodstock’s 23rd birthday.
Mr Woodstock was sentenced by Judge O’Driscoll on 4 February 2020 to six years and six months’ imprisonment for the 2019 offending.[1] This sentence was to be served cumulatively on an existing sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment that had been imposed on 29 May 2019 on four charges of receiving stolen motor vehicles (the 2017 offending).[2] This offending occurred in June, November and December 2017 when Mr Woodstock was aged 21.
[1]R v Woodstock [2020] NZDC 1915 [Sentencing judgment].
[2]Police v Woodstock [2019] NZDC 10396. This decision was confirmed on appeal in Woodstock v Police [2019] NZHC 2070.
In the result, Mr Woodstock is serving an overall sentence of eight years and eight months’ imprisonment for the totality of this offending. He had not previously been imprisoned.
Mr Woodstock now appeals against his sentence for the 2019 offending. He contends the adjusted starting point adopted for the 2019 offending was too high, a discount for personal circumstances ought to have been allowed, and a greater adjustment should have been made to reflect the totality of the 2019 and 2017 offending given these sentences were to be served cumulatively.
Mr Woodstock filed his appeal 11 working days out of time. The delay was relatively short and there has been no prejudice to the Crown. We accordingly grant the application for an extension of time to appeal.
The facts
Burglary
Sometime after 6 pm on 27 January 2019, Mr Woodstock and three associates drove to the unoccupied address of the victim. They gained entry to the house by breaking the laundry window with a brick and reaching inside to open the door. Once inside, they obtained the keys to a Ford Falcon motor vehicle and a Harley Davidson motorcycle. They took these vehicles away from the property together with a laptop computer found in the house. The estimated combined value of these items was $90,000.
Aggravated robbery
At about 2 pm the following day, Mr Woodstock and his associates returned to the address. This time, the victim was home. When he saw them driving up his driveway, he ran from the garage to a neighbour’s house to seek help. He knocked on the door, but no one answered. Mr Woodstock and the others pursued him. When the victim took out his cell phone to call the police, one of Mr Woodstock’s associates snatched it from his hand.
The victim was told to return to his house. When he refused, one of Mr Woodstock’s associates threatened him, asking if he “wanted to see a gun” (in fact, there was no gun). The victim was then punched in the face by another of Mr Woodstock’s associates. The summary of facts records that “the male defendants” (referring to Mr Woodstock and two others) punched, stomped and kicked the victim repeatedly and dragged him back to his house.
The victim was instructed to contact the police and advise them that the property stolen the previous day had been returned. The victim was also instructed to write a letter changing the ownership of the vehicles to one of Mr Woodstock’s associates. Mr Woodstock remained with the victim while the others searched the house. Four firearms were located and taken away by one of Mr Woodstock’s associates.
Unlawful possession of firearms
On 31 January 2019, police executed a search warrant at the address of one of Mr Woodstock’s associates. Two firearms were located (neither belonged to the victim). Mr Woodstock’s fingerprint was found on one of these firearms. Mr Woodstock did not hold a firearms licence.
Failure to carry out obligations in relation to computer search
On 1 February 2019, police seized Mr Woodstock’s cell phone under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. Mr Woodstock refused to provide his passcode to the phone.
Sentence indication
The Judge gave a sentence indication on 23 October 2019.[3] The Judge took aggravated robbery as the lead charge.[4] He identified the following aggravating factors — multiple offenders (four), home invasion, use of violence, premeditation, value of property taken and the impact on the victim who has suffered serious physical, emotional and financial harm.[5] After considering comparable cases, the Judge adopted a starting point of seven years and six months’ imprisonment for the aggravated robbery charge.[6] The Judge applied a two-year uplift for the burglary[7] and a further uplift of six months to take into account that the offending occurred while Mr Woodstock was on bail for the 2017 offending.[8] A 20 per cent discount was allowed for Mr Woodstock’s guilty plea bringing the indicated sentence to one of eight years’ imprisonment.[9] The Judge then applied a 12-month adjustment for totality to take account of the sentence imposed for the 2017 offending.[10] The indicated sentence was therefore seven years’ imprisonment, cumulative on the sentence for the 2017 offending.[11] The Judge noted that he did not have a PAC report or any report prepared under s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 but doubted that these would alter the outcome given the approach he had taken.[12]
Sentencing judgment
[3]R v Woodstock [2019] NZDC 21007 [Sentence indication].
[4]At [34].
[5]At [38].
[6]At [40]–[44].
[7]At [45].
[8]At [53].
[9]At [56]–[57].
[10]At [59]–[60].
[11]At [61] and [66].
[12]At [68].
Mr Woodstock accepted the sentence indication and pleaded guilty. A PAC report, a s 27 cultural report and a letter written by Mr Woodstock to the Judge were provided for the purposes of sentencing. Mr Woodstock also expressed his willingness to meet the victim and engage in a restorative justice conference.
However, the Judge declined to postpone sentencing to enable the prospect of restorative justice to be pursued. The Judge considered it highly unlikely that the victim would wish to engage in such a process and said it would be in everyone’s interests for sentencing to proceed without delay.[13]
[13]Sentencing judgment, above n 1, at [3].
In accordance with the Sentence indication, the Judge adopted a starting point of seven and a half years’ imprisonment for the aggravated robbery charge. This was uplifted by two years’ imprisonment for the burglary charge. The Judge applied an uplift of six months to reflect that the offending occurred while Mr Woodstock was on bail for the 2017 offending. The adjusted sentence was therefore 10 years’ imprisonment.[14] No discount was made for Mr Woodstock’s personal circumstances. A 20 per cent discount (two years) was applied for the guilty plea. This was adjusted by 12 months for totality to bring the sentence to seven years’ imprisonment.[15] The Judge then made a further adjustment of six months to take account that this sentence was to be served cumulatively on the existing sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment for the 2017 offending.[16]
[14]At [11].
[15]At [11].
[16]At [12].
In the result, Mr Woodstock was sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment on the charge of aggravated robbery. Concurrent sentences were imposed for the other offences — three years’ imprisonment for burglary, two years’ imprisonment for the two charges of unlawful possession of firearms and one month’s imprisonment for failing to comply with the search.[17] The effective end sentence was therefore six years and six months’ imprisonment to be served cumulatively on the sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment for the 2017 offending. This differed from the Sentence indication only to the extent that a further six-month adjustment was made for totality.
Was the starting point too high?
[17]At [13].
Mr Lucas, for Mr Woodstock, argues the starting point on the aggravated robbery charge should have been six years and six months, the same as was upheld by this Court in Tereroa v R.[18] He says the facts in Tereroa are similar to the present in that it also involved the victim being assaulted by multiple offenders in his home. As in the present case, the offenders did not carry weapons. Mr Lucas notes that Mr Woodstock says he did not personally engage in the violence. Mr Lucas argues that an uplift of 18 months’ imprisonment (as opposed to two years) would have been sufficient to take account of the burglary charge. These adjustments would reduce the adjusted starting point by 18 months, from 10 years to eight years and six months. This would be before the guilty plea discount, any discount for personal mitigating circumstances and any adjustment for totality.
[18]Tereroa v R [2015] NZCA 120.
Mr Davie, for the Crown, submits that the starting point of seven years and six months for the aggravated robbery was in range. He refers to this Court’s guideline decision in R v Mako and various other decisions applying it such as R v Fenton and Currie v R suggesting that starting points in the region of 10 years’ imprisonment are appropriate in cases of aggravated robbery involving invasion of a private home.[19] Mr Davie points out that the starting point of six years and six months’ imprisonment adopted in Tereroa v R was described by this Court as being at the very bottom end of the available range.[20]
[19]R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170 (CA), FentonvR [2008] NZCA 379 at [15] and Currie v R [2010] NZCA 449 at [47].
[20]Tereroa v R, above n 18, at [29].
We are satisfied the starting point of seven years and six months adopted for the aggravated robbery was within the available range and in accordance with this Court’s guideline judgment in R v Mako.[21] The offending was premeditated, involved four offenders, violence, the threat of a firearm, entry to the victim’s home and theft of property. The victim has suffered considerably as a result of the offending. While Mr Woodstock says he did not participate in the violence, he pleaded guilty to a summary of facts that states otherwise. Sentencing had to proceed on that basis given no disputed facts hearing was sought.
[21]R v Mako, above n 19, at [58].
We do not consider the uplift of two years for the burglary the previous day can be regarded as excessive in the circumstances, in particular due to the significant value of the property stolen. In our view, these aspects of the sentencing exercise cannot be impeached, particularly given there was no uplift for the other offending. In any event, the ultimate question is whether the end sentence is appropriate, not the way it was constructed. We now turn to the more difficult issues of whether the overall adjustment for totality was adequate given the sentence was cumulative on the sentence imposed for the 2017 offending and whether there should have been a discount for Mr Woodstock’s personal circumstances.
Should there have been a discount for Mr Woodstock’s personal circumstances?
The Judge allowed no discount for Mr Woodstock’s personal circumstances. Mr Lucas submits this was an error. Mr Davie submits that the Judge was entitled not to allow any discount for personal mitigating factors in all the circumstances. Mr Woodstock was 23 years old at the time of the offending and no longer a youth. The offending was premeditated. It was neither impulsive nor out of character. Mr Davie submits that Mr Woodstock does not have “bright” rehabilitative prospects. Mr Davie does, however, acknowledge that it would have been open to the Judge to recognise a modest discount to reflect Mr Woodstock’s difficult childhood.
Mr Woodstock was the third eldest of four children. His father took no part in raising him. Indeed, Mr Woodstock has never met his biological father. Mr Woodstock had a socially and economically disadvantaged upbringing.
Mr Woodstock was conditioned to violence from an early age. He was bullied on a daily basis by his older brother, who suffered from ADHD. It appears that Mr Woodstock was the target of his brother’s frustrations and anger. His brother was eight years older than him and physically much bigger. The fighting continued without adult intervention and only stopped when Mr Woodstock became old enough to stand up for himself. On one occasion, when Mr Woodstock was sleeping at his grandmother’s house, he woke to find his brother straddling him, holding a knife across his face and threatening to stab him. He was aged 11 at the time and his brother was 19. Fortunately, his brother was disturbed before the situation escalated further. Mr Woodstock also reports being the subject of abuse from one of his stepfathers and witnessing violence against his mother.
Although describing his home environment as “pretty shitty” much of the time, Mr Woodstock says he was grateful for his mother’s efforts to provide for him as best she could. He says visiting his maternal grandparents, who lived nearby, “was a reprieve when things at home were tough”. Unfortunately, his grandfather passed away when Mr Woodstock was about eight years old and his grandmother died in November 2017.
Mr Woodstock was expelled from school at the age of 13 and did not attend school from that point onwards. He describes himself as being “in a type of survival mode, always self-dependent”. He speaks of “surviving without an education” and says he wants “to get back that part of his life”. He has never been employed. He states that it is difficult to get a job without experience and he feels “dumb” and “judged”. He expresses disappointment at the loss of his education and is keen to redress this. The PAC report writer states that Mr Woodstock has commenced further education since being in custody and there is a possibility he may be able to gain employment with a construction company through a family connection once he is released. His ultimate ambition is to become a qualified mechanical engineer.
Mr Woodstock relies heavily on his small circle of friends. He told the probation officer that he found it difficult to make social connections growing up and gravitated towards peers who support rule-breaking behaviour. His desire to help one of his friends, who was also one of his co-offenders, was a contributing factor in his offending.
The writer of the cultural report states that Mr Woodstock does not have an alcohol or drug problem, but he acknowledges that his offending is a concern. Mr Woodstock was willing to participate in a restorative justice conference with the victim. This did not progress for the reasons we have already noted. The report writer considers that there is a nexus between Mr Woodstock’s offending and the trauma he suffered in his upbringing from bullying and witnessing violence. His decision-making has also been constrained by his lack of education and lifelong poverty.
Mr Woodstock has no prior convictions for violent offending of any kind. That aspect of the offending could be viewed as being out of character. As noted, Mr Woodstock denies participating in the violence against the victim, although he acknowledges being present when it occurred. He told the PAC report writer that he did not “use any violence towards the victim” and wants to “clear his name” because he does not want to be perceived as a violent person. While denying that he physically assaulted the victim, Mr Woodstock expressed guilt and shame for the harm inflicted on him.
Mr Woodstock has some prior convictions for dishonesty-related offending. He has one conviction for theft (for offending in March 2015) for which he was sentenced to community work and ordered to pay reparation of $699. In addition to the 2017 offending, Mr Woodstock has three other convictions for unlawfully taking motor vehicles (for offending in April 2015 and January 2016). Mr Woodstock was ordered to pay total reparation of $556 and ordered to serve sentences of community work for this offending. Mr Woodstock has other minor convictions, but none of any present relevance. The current sentence of imprisonment is clearly a very big step up for him.
Mr Woodstock told both report writers that he is ready and willing to engage in rehabilitative treatment.
We consider there is an obvious nexus between Mr Woodstock’s social and economic deprivation and his offending. Mr Woodstock’s lack of education, lack of employment and lack of family support from a young age do not excuse, but help explain why he has found himself living in “a type of survival mode” and has resorted to engaging in some criminal activity. Although, at 23, Mr Woodstock is no longer a youth, he is still a young adult and as such is less likely to be able to resist peer influence and make sound decisions. We consider these factors are relevant to the assessment of Mr Woodstock’s culpability for his offending.
The importance of taking a different approach to sentencing young adults was discussed in Dr Andrea Păroşanu and Professor Ineke Pruin’s article “Young adults and the criminal justice system”.[22]They point to research showing that certain functions of the brain such as impulse control and resistance to peer influence continue to develop into the mid‑twenties and beyond and, “in many ways, young adults are more similar to youths … than to adults”.[23] Countries such as Germany, Austria, Croatia and the Netherlands have extended the application of juvenile law provisions to young offenders up to the age of 23, thereby recognising the need to treat young adults differently from more mature adults and the importance of minimising the exposure of young offenders to the negative influences of imprisonment at an age where decision-making and risk-taking functions are still in development.[24]
[22]Andrea Păroşanu and Ineke Pruin “Young adults and the criminal justice system” [2020] NZLJ 296.
[23]At 297.
[24]At 297–298.
We also consider that rehabilitation is an important purpose of sentencing in Mr Woodstock’s case. He has not received any form of counselling or assistance to address the causes of his offending. It appears that he is motivated to overcome the disadvantages of his upbringing, advance his education, and pursue a worthwhile life. His prospects for rehabilitation are supported by his expression of shame for his offending, concern for the victim and his preparedness to meet the victim and engage in a restorative justice process. These matters are to Mr Woodstock’s credit. They demonstrate a willingness to be held accountable for his offending and a genuine motivation to change.
It is important that the sentence imposed on a young man like Mr Woodstock is not crushing, removing all hope. As it stands, he could spend the better part of his twenties in prison. This is unlikely to assist Mr Woodstock’s rehabilitation or reintegration into the community. On the contrary, there is a risk of Mr Woodstock regressing while in prison and being set on an irreversible path of further and more serious offending. This would be contrary to the public interest.
We are satisfied that a discount should have been allowed for Mr Woodstock’s social and economic deprivation and his prospects for rehabilitation. We consider a discount of the order 18 months (approximately 15 per cent) from the adjusted starting point is appropriate in all the circumstances.
Taking the adjusted starting point fixed by the Judge of nine years, six months’ imprisonment, this reduces to eight years and six months’ imprisonment after uplifting by six months for offending while on bail and discounting by 18 months for personal mitigating circumstances. There is no challenge to the guilty plea discount (20 per cent) which is also to be applied to the adjusted started point (rounded to 24 months). This brings the indicated sentence to six years and six months’ imprisonment before any adjustment is made for totality.
Was the totality adjustment adequate?
The Judge made an aggregate totality adjustment of 18 months for both sets of offending, recognising that the sentences would be served cumulatively. Mr Lucas submits that the overall sentence of eight years and eight months’ imprisonment for the 2017 and 2019 offending is too long as a first custodial sentence for a young man who has accepted responsibility for his wrongdoing and has good prospects for rehabilitation. We agree.
A substantial totality adjustment was clearly required, as the Judge recognised. The adjusted starting point for the 2019 offending was nine years and six months’ imprisonment. The adjusted starting point for the 2017 offending was three years’ imprisonment.[25] The combined starting point was therefore 12 years and six months’ imprisonment (ignoring the six month uplift for offending while on bail). Clearly, that would have been grossly disproportionate in all the circumstances to reflect the totality of the offending, particularly for a young man facing his first custodial sentence. We consider an overall adjustment of two years’ imprisonment was required to reflect Mr Woodstock’s culpability for the totality of his offending.
[25]Police v Woodstock, above n 2, at [19]–[22].
In conclusion, the sentence appeal must be allowed. The end sentence for the 2019 offending is reduced to four years and six months’ imprisonment taking into account that it is to be served cumulatively with the sentence imposed for the 2017 offending. The effective sentence for the totality of the 2017 and 2019 offending is therefore six years and eight months’ imprisonment.
Result
The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
The appeal against sentence is allowed.
The sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment on the charge of aggravated robbery is set aside. A sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment is substituted. This is to be served cumulatively on the sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment imposed for the 2017 offending. The other sentences imposed in the District Court are confirmed.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent
14
4
0