Woodward v Police - [2022] NZHC 2774

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-404-000312

[2022] NZHC 2774

BETWEEN
EDWARD WOODWARD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 25 October 2022

Appearances:

N R Williams for Appellant

W Fotherby and J Gibson for Respondent

Judgment:

26 October 2022

Reissued:

20 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

(Appeal against sentence)

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 26 October 2022 at 3.30 pm
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
N R Williams, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland

WOODWARD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 2774 [26 October 2022]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Edward Woodward, appeals a sentence of two years’ imprisonment and a reparation order of $12,000 imposed by Judge A M Manuel in the District Court at Auckland on 15 August 20221 in respect of a representative charge of arson, contrary to s 267(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961.

[2] Mr Woodward appeals the sentence. He says it was manifestly excessive, wrong in principle and that a different sentence should have been imposed.

[3] The Crown submits that the Court should dismiss the appeal because the end sentence was well within the available range and was not manifestly excessive.

Summary of offending

[4] During September 2021, Mr Woodward was residing at a residential property occupied by his mother in Whangārei. It had adjoining neighbours and there were boundary fences on the common boundaries.

[5] At approximately 5.20 am on Sunday 19 September 2021, Mr Woodward was at home. He was angry with the neighbours, as he believed (mistakenly) that they had been onto his mother’s property without permission. His intention was to create fear amongst the neighbours, given his perception that they had wronged him.

[6] To this end, Mr Woodward made some Molotov cocktails using glass bottles which he filled with petrol and sealed with a rag. He put on a mask so that he would not be recognised. He then stood on the deck of his mother’s property and took one of the Molotov cocktails. He lit the protruding rag and threw the Molotov cocktail onto the adjoining fence between his mother’s property and the property owned by one of the neighbours. He watched as the fence caught fire. He then took another Molotov cocktail, set it alight and threw it onto the fence between his mother’s property and that of the other neighbour. He also watched the second fence as it caught fire. Mr Woodward then ran to his vehicle and left the scene.

1 Police v Woodward [2022] NZDC 15478.

[7] The fires were extinguished. Both fences sustained blackening and some charring as a result of the fires but it appears that the damage was modest.

[8] The following night, on Monday 20 September 2021 at around 1.45 am, Mr Woodward returned to his mother’s property. He looked at the fences and saw that there did not appear to be…

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 Woodward 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: [2022] NZHC 2774
Decision Date: 26 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Edward Woodward appeals the sentence imposed on him by Judge A M Manuel in the Auckland District Court, contending that it was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle. The District Court had imposed a sentence of two years' imprisonment and a reparation order of $12,000 for a charge of arson under section 267(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961, for damaging property with intent to cause damage. Woodward argues that the District Court erred in classifying the seriousness of the offending, failed to give proper weight to his mental health issues, and did not consider his ability to pay reparation.

The High Court found that while the District Court's starting point of four years' imprisonment was appropriate, the reparation order was problematic. The District Court had not obtained a reparation report under section 33(1) of the Sentencing Act and had not considered Woodward's financial capacity to pay the reparation order. The Court allowed the appeal on the basis of the reparation order and remitted the matter back to the District Court to reconsider the reparation order in light of a reparation report and to determine the appropriate sentence, including whether the reparation order should affect the sentence to be imposed. Issues of bail pending resentencing are to be considered by the District Court.

Orders