Woolston v Police - [2017] NZHC 1079

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2017-404-000131 [2017] NZHC 1079

BETWEEN
LUKE JASON WOOLSTON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 22 May 2017

Counsel:

NC Baier for Appellant
L Fraser for Respondent

Judgment:

23 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 23 May 2017 at 1 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Public Defence Service, Auckland.
Meredith Connell, Auckland.

WOOLSTON v POLICE [2017] NZHC 1079 [23 May 2017]

The appeal

[1] This is a sentence appeal against a term of 22 months’ imprisonment.1 The appellant contends Judge Sharp adopted an excessive starting point, gave insufficient discount for guilty pleas, and should have imposed home detention rather than imprisonment. The appellant was sentenced on one charge each of breaching release conditions;2 unlawfully taking a motor vehicle;3 unlawfully getting into a motor
vehicle;4 dangerously operating a motor vehicle;5 and failing to stop.6

Background

[2] The narrative commences on 28 July 2016 when, despite a number of warnings, the appellant breached release conditions by failing to report to his probation officer. On 19 August 2016 a Toyota Corolla was stolen. Police found it on 6 September 2016. The driver—later identified to be the appellant—failed to stop. He and two associates parked the car in a driveway and ran away. They were caught. The appellant was not.

[3] Similar events followed on 22 September when the appellant took a Mazda Familia, and failed to stop on 1 October 2016.7 Police gave chase. The appellant drove:

(a) Through a residential area at speeds of over 100 kilometres per hour.

(b)On the wrong side of the road a number of times, toward oncoming traffic.

(c) Through a red light, narrowly avoiding another car.

And, the appellant completed at least one dangerous u-turn.

1      Police v Woolston [2017] NZDC 6038.
2      Parole Act 2002, s 71(1). Maximum penalty is one year imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 226(1). Maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act, s 226(2). Maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.
5      Land Transport Act 1988, s 35(1)(b). Maximum penalty is three months’ imprisonment.
6      Land Transport Act, ss 52(1)(c) and (3). Maximum penalty is a fine up to $10,000 and a minimum disqualification period of three months.
7      It was common ground the date in the summary of facts was wrong.

[4] The appellant then abandoned the car. He was found on the same street a short time later.

[5] The appellant was on bail for breach of release conditions at the time, having been charged with the offence at [2] on or about 1 September 2016.

The sentence

[6] Judge Sharp adopted a global starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment. The Judge added six months for the appellant’s criminal history; deducted four months for restrictive bail and rehabilitative efforts; and a further three months in recognition of guilty pleas (a deduction of approximately 15 percent).

[7] The Judge declined to commute the sentence to one of home detention. The appellant’s non-compliance with…

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.

Continue reading Woolston v Police

Details

AGLC: Woolston v Police [2017] NZHC 1079
Case: [2017] NZHC 1079
Decision Date: 23 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luke Jason Woolston appeals against his sentence of 22 months imprisonment, arguing that the sentencing judge, Judge Sharp, made several errors in calculating the appropriate sentence. Woolston contends that the starting point should have been lower, that the discount for his guilty pleas should have been greater, and that home detention would have been a more appropriate sentence. The appeal was heard by Downs J in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry.

The court was required to decide whether the sentencing judge made any errors in calculating the appropriate sentence for Woolston's criminal activities. These activities included breaching release conditions, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, dangerously operating a motor vehicle, and failing to stop. The court had to consider whether the starting point for the sentence was too high, whether the discount for guilty pleas was too low, and whether home detention would have been a more appropriate sentence.

The court found that the sentencing judge's starting point of 24 months imprisonment was available but stern. The court also found that the discount for guilty pleas was appropriate, as the appellant had not sought a 25 percent discount at sentencing. Finally, the court found that the sentencing judge was entitled to impose a sentence of imprisonment, given Woolston's criminal history and the seriousness of his offending. The appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court are not provided in the text. However, it is likely that the court upheld the original sentence of 22 months imprisonment for Woolston.

Orders