Wright v Police - [2013] NZHC 2049

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-207 [2013] NZHC 2049

BETWEEN
CRAIG ALISTAIR WRIGHT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:	13 August 2013
Appearances:	R Treloar for appellant L Mills for respondent
Judgment:	13 August 2013

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J
[on appeal against sentence]

CRAIG ALISTAIR WRIGHT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 2049 [13 August 2013]

[1] Mr Wright pleaded guilty in the District Court to two charges of burglary and two charges of aggravated driving whilst disqualified. On 15 July 2013, Judge Winter sentenced him to 25 months imprisonment.1

[2] Mr Wright appeals to this Court against the sentence the Judge imposed. He argues that the Judge gave insufficient recognition to his guilty pleas, and thereby imposed an end sentence that was manifestly excessive. He contends that an appropriate end sentence would have rendered him eligible for a sentence of home detention, and that the Judge ought to have imposed that sentence rather than a sentence of imprisonment.

Background

[3] The charges arose out of the fact that Mr Wright had worked as a contractor at the New Zealand Steel mill situated near Waiuku. This gave him access to the plant, and knowledge of its layout. He devised a plan whereby, on at least two separate occasions, he travelled to the plant in his vehicle at night. He then waited until another vehicle went through the gate, before entering the plant yard following closely behind the vehicle in front.

[4] Mr Wright would then proceed to a building on the northern side of the yard. He knew that this building had an insecure door, and he used this to gain access to the building. He then opened a larger roller door, and drove his own vehicle inside the building.

[5] Once inside the building, Mr Wright used a forklift to load onto his vehicle contact clamps made out of cooper and bronze. He also loaded onto his vehicle coil inductor windings made out of steel and copper. The former weighed 300 to 450 kilograms each, and each was valued at $18,211. The coil inductor windings each weighed approximately 400 to 450 kilograms, and were each valued at approximately $8,700. Although a total of 28 copper clamps were stolen from the plant, Mr Wright pleaded guilty on the basis that he was only responsible for stealing

1 New Zealand Police v Wright DC Pukekohe CRI-2012-057-001944, 15 July 2013.

19 of these. He acknowledged, however, that he had taken all three coil inductor windings.

[6] After stealing the property, Mr Wright subsequently took some of it to a scrap dealer some distance from his home where he sold the items for cash. He received a total sum of approximately $21,000 in respect of these sales.

[7] The burglaries occurred at some stage between January and 21 August 2012. The theft of the items was not discovered by the plant management until 21 August 2012. At that stage, the police became involved and an alert was…

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 Wright v Police

Details

AGLC: Wright v Police [2013] NZHC 2049
Case: [2013] NZHC 2049
Decision Date: 13 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Craig Alistair Wright appealed against the 25-month imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Court for two charges of burglary and two charges of aggravated driving while disqualified. Wright argued that the sentencing judge gave insufficient recognition to his guilty pleas and that the end sentence was manifestly excessive. He contended that a sentence of home detention would have been more appropriate. The court considered the arguments and found that the starting point of 30 months for the burglary charges was appropriate given the sophistication and premeditation involved in the burglaries. The court also found that the discount applied for Wright's guilty pleas was reasonable, considering the inevitability of conviction and other factors. Finally, the court agreed with the sentencing judge that a sentence of home detention would not have been appropriate in this case due to the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and the need for proper accountability. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders