Wratt v Police - [2012] NZHC 3137

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI 2012-441-36 [2012] NZHC 3137

DAVID WAYNE WRATT
Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 22 November 2012

Counsel: E R Fairbrother for Appellant
J E Rielly for Respondent

Judgment: 23 November 2012

JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J (Appeal against sentence)

[1] Mr Wratt was sentenced on charges of burglary and theft to 15 months’

imprisonment. The Judge at sentencing in the District Court said that this was a:

blatant and deliberate commercial burglary by a profoundly dishonest man whose protestations of remorse today are as unconvincing as they could possibly be.

[2] The Judge started with a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment and reduced it
to 15 months to knowledge his guilty plea. A concurrent one month sentence was imposed for the shoplifting.

DAVID WAYNE WRATT V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC NAP CRI 2012-441-36 [23 November 2012]

[3] The grounds of appeal against sentence are that the Judge failed to: (a) adopt the least restrictive outcome;
(b) to address the appellant’s rehabilitation needs;

(c) to consider his expressions of remorse; and

(d) to consider the outcome of restorative justice meeting;

(e) denied the appellant “natural justice in considering matters” on which the appellant was not heard.

The facts

[4] On 27 December 2011 in the early hours of the morning, Mr Wratt parked his car opposite Bunnings Trade Store and yard in Napier. Mr Wratt had a radio scanner, a flashlight and wire cutters. He cut the Bunnings yard parameter fence and entered the yard. He then cut a tie from a bundle of decking timber, took four lengths of timber and threw them over the fence, collected them and placed them in his vehicle. He was about to drive off when a passing Police patrol saw this, stopped and arrested him (for burglary).

[5] Mr Wratt lied when he told the Police he had found the wood on the side of the road. About six weeks before Mr Wratt had shoplifted from the same store. He put a hammer valued at $70 under his jacket and tried to leave the store without paying but was apprehended (the theft charge).

District Court sentencing

[6] As the Judge remarked, Mr Wratt has a long and distressing history of dishonesty. He is now 40 years of age and began offending almost 20 years ago. He has over 50 convictions for dishonest offending. The most recent, prior to this offending, was shoplifting on 14 June 2011 when he was ordered to come up for

sentence if called upon one year, well within the offending covered by the current sentencing. He had been sentenced to two years, four months’ imprisonment in March 2010 on fraud charges.

[7] The Judge noted that there had been long adjournments before this matter had been dealt with. The reasons were not entirely clear but they included the wish to obtain medical reports and for a restorative of justice conference.

[8] The Judge noted:[1]

... That the conference had…

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 Wratt v Police

Details

AGLC: Wratt v Police [2012] NZHC 3137
Case: [2012] NZHC 3137
Decision Date: 23 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wratt v Police, the appellant, David Wayne Wratt, challenged his sentence of 15 months' imprisonment, imposed for charges of burglary and theft, before the High Court of New Zealand. The court had to determine if the District Court judge's sentencing was appropriate given the mitigating factors presented by the appellant. The appellant argued that the judge failed to consider certain aspects in imposing the sentence, including the least restrictive outcome, the appellant's rehabilitation needs, expressions of remorse, the outcome of a restorative justice meeting, and the principle of natural justice.

The reasoning of the High Court focused on the severity of the sentence relative to the nature of the offence and the appellant's history of dishonesty. While the District Court judge considered the appellant's extensive criminal history, the High Court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court noted that the burglary, although planned, involved the theft of a modest value of timber, which was immediately recovered, suggesting a lesser sentence could have been justified. The High Court also highlighted the appellant's guilty plea and his recent efforts toward rehabilitation, including participation in a restorative justice meeting and medical treatment for attention deficit syndrome. Despite these factors, the High Court deemed the imposed sentence to be disproportionate and replaced it with a sentence of four months' community detention. The court's decision underscores the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the consideration of both the nature of the offence and the offender's circumstances.

Orders