Police v Northover DC Masterton CRI-2011-035-48 [2011] NZDC 1001 (1 July 2011)

Last Updated: 30 September 2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MASTERTON

_{CRI-2011-035-000048}

NEW ZEALAND POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Informants

v

KORAL LEANNE NORTHOVER

Defendant

Hearing: 1 July 2011

Appearances: Sergeant G Wilson for the Police

D Smith for the Dept of Corrections

L Elder for the Defendant

Judgment: 1 July 2011

_{NOTES OF JUDGE JOHN WALKER ON SENTENCING}

[1] Ms Northover, you appear for sentence on a number of charges today and face an application for review of sentences of community work and supervision which had previously been imposed on you.

[2] The charges are, firstly, theft of a substantial value of property from The Warehouse. This was beyond shoplifting. You and another went into The Warehouse, loaded up a trolley with tents to the value of $2,399, and then simply brazenly walked out of the store with them. When a security guard intervened, you simply said you had bought them, loaded them into your car and took off. All but

_{one of the tents were taken from the premises.}

POLICE V NORTHOVER DC MAS CRI-2011-035-000048 1 July 2011

[3] Then, you were found in a building, your ex-partner’s home. You entered his house in order to view his cellphone messages, without any concern for the fact that it was somebody else’s property.

[4] There is then another shoplifting, where you stole makeup. Finally, there are a breach of community work, a breach of supervision, and a breach of Police bail.

[5] The application for review of sentence relates to the community work and supervision, because of your breaches. Those sentences were imposed for shoplifting and a breach of sentence.

[6] You have a history of seven previous convictions for breaching community work and supervision, and six previous convictions for shoplifting.

[7] In the pre-sentence report it is clear that you try to justify what you have done. You say you needed to steal because you needed to pay the rent. Well, a lot of people in the community have difficulty paying their bills, but they do not all go out stealing. Then you justify entering into somebody else’s property because you wanted to find out whether or not he had been cheating on you. Again, that is no justification for, essentially, being unlawfully in somebody else’s property.

[8] When turning to consider how these matters should be dealt with, I am looking at them in the round – that is, as a total package of offending, including the application for review. Community work is clearly out of the question because of your history of breaching the sentences. Likewise, community detention is, in my view, not appropriate, because confining you to home at night without any further penalty really is no penalty at all for you. Moreover, it would need to be imposed with community work to make it an effective sentence, and you simply do not comply with community-based sentences.

[9] The only options left are imprisonment and, if I get to that stage, considering whether home detention is appropriate. You have not previously been to prison, and I am conscious of that. I am also conscious of the fact that you have entered pleas of guilty to the charges.

[10] Overall, before considering whether home detention can be appropriate, I would consider that a starting point would be a sentence of nine months’ imprisonment, to reflect the offending and the fact that the earlier sentences now have to be cancelled and reviewed.

[11] You will be entitled to credit for the pleas of guilty which you have entered. That would reduce the sentence to one of six-and-a-half months’ imprisonment.

[12] Home detention, in my assessment, is an appropriate response, to try and keep you out of jail. You have not been to prison before and, overall, this offending would not of itself justify imprisonment – except for your non-compliance with sentences.

[13] You need to understand that if there is any breach of home detention, then you will simply show a Judge that you cannot be trusted on any sentence short of imprisonment.

[14] I will deal with these matters by way of a sentence of home detention for three months. That takes account of the fact that a sentence of home detention is served in its entirety.

[15] On the breach of bail, you will be convicted and discharged.

[16] In respect of all of the other charges and on the review, you will be sentenced

to three months’ home detention on the conditions set out in the pre-sentence report. [17] The existing sentences are cancelled.

[18] Fines are remitted.

John Walker

District Court Judge