R v Gray [2019] NZDC 13050 (5 July 2019)

Last Updated: 13 September 2021

EDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO THIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS].

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT NAPIER I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI AHURIRI

CRI-2016-041-002513

[2019] NZDC 13050

THE QUEEN

v

PETER JOHN JAMES GRAY

Hearing:	5 July 2019
Appearances:	C R Stuart for the Crown D E Foster for the Defendant
Judgment:	5 July 2019

NOTES OF JUDGE B M MACKINTOSH ON SENTENCING

[1] Mr Gray, you sought a sentence indication in relation to a large number of charges and essentially accepted that a number of months after the event once there had been some negotiation in relation to some relatively minor charges. But basically today, you appear for sentence for three burglary charges, 49 other charges of receiving varying amounts and some other minor matters including unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of instruments for burglary.

[2] The factual background to all of this is that in and around about August 2015 and through to the end of August 2016, there was a pattern of construction site burglaries in the Napier/Hastings area and a large number of building materials associated with the construction work place was stolen from varying addresses. At the time you were living at [address 1 deleted] and on 26 August the police executed a

R v PETER JOHN JAMES GRAY [2019] NZDC 13050 [5 July 2019]

search warrant at your address where large amounts of stolen property, such as tools, building materials et cetera were uncovered at the address when discovered. The police were able to match reports of the stolen property with property located and, it seems from what I can gather, most of the stolen property has been recovered although the police still have property there that needs to be distributed, they are unsure who the owners are. The total value of the received goods was the figure now given to me by the Crown is $145,873.30.

[3] In addition, there is some other minor charges but basically the police at the address searched a vehicle and searched when they were there they found two ammunition reloading press, some gun powder, some gun casings and some wadding for reloading the ammunition. That was taken to the police station. They also found a cut down rifle with a firing mechanism and a silencer capable of being attached to that.

[4] Then between 18 and 19 May you had gone to [address 2 deleted], this in relation to the burglary charges, the summary says that you took some attic stairs and a work light from that address. Your DNA was subsequently found on a crowbar left at the scene. Then on 30 July you were driving to [address 3 deleted] and went onto the property, burgled it and took some items to the value of $1900. Then between 19 and 22 August went to another address in [address 4 deleted] and took some plaster worth $200 and there was a DNA match to that scene.

[5] When you were spoken to by the police initially you denied any involvement in the burglaries or theft or any items of the property and basically said all of them at your home belonged either to your deceased grandfather, uncle or you had purchased them yourself through Trader Magazine and garage sales. You said you found a trailer which was stolen from Bunnings full of building materials on the side of the road and took it home to secure it in case the owner turned up and went on to say that if the owner never turned up you intended to keep it.

[6] I have read the pre-sentence report and I have also read a number of victim impact statements that have been filed by the Crown. Some of them are quite detailed but essentially, they just generally, not surprisingly, reflect just that the stress that is

caused to owners of properties and building materials and construction sites when items are taken, the hassle with insurance, the concern about further materials being taken and the really emotional financial and psychological stress that comes from all of this and their own personal financial loss.

[7] As far as the pre-sentence report is concerned, I think you feel that you are somewhat of a victim of this system in some respects in terms of the way the prosecution was approached and the large number of charges. But in the result, you have pleaded guilty albeit approximately one month before the matter was due to go to trial with a large number of witnesses.

[8] But you do say to the report writer that you do feel sorry for the victims and I think also you deeply regret the way in which your conduct has actually affected your own family and your own relationship with your family and the fact that you have been unable to support your family financially. You are not in a position to pay any reparation to the victims I believe. I can see too from the letters that I have been given, that in other ways you have been in your own local community of assistance to people by helping out where they have had problems of their own. I believe you are a plumber by trade and your mother speaks of assistance you have given to people in that regard and also I do have a letter here from Mr Hokianga who says that you have given quite a lot of service to your local community in terms of the Maungaroa Marae so I do bear all of that in mind.

[9] There was quite some discussion at the earlier sentence indication that was given now back on 16 August about the overall approach to the sentencing and how the figures were arrived at and they are all clearly set out in there, so I do not believe that I need to go through all of that again today. But the way that it was approached ultimately was that in terms of all the receiving charges there was a starting point of five and a half years’ imprisonment. There was an uplift of 12 months for the burglary charges. A reduction of in and around 25 percent for totality leading to an overall starting point of four years’ 10 months’ imprisonment. There was a further reduction of four months for the time spent on restrictive bail conditions, despite the fact that there were bail breaches and offending whilst on bail, and then ultimately a reduction

of 20 percent for the plea, notwithstanding it did come relatively late resulting in an end sentence of three years’ and seven months’ imprisonment.

[10] Since then, and since that sentence indication you have spent further time on EM bail and there has been some resolution of minor charges but in many respects the further time spent on EM bail which would entitle you to a further credit has somewhat been cancelled out by the passage of time that had elapsed between the sentence indication was given and when you ultimately did decide to plead guilty.

[11] However, what I am prepared to do is for that, and for the letters that have been written in support, give you a further two month reduction so the end sentence will be one of three years and five months. That will be reflected on all the charges that have a maximum penalty of seven years or more. In relation to charges under $500 on those charges it will simply reflect a term of imprisonment of three months on all the other matters.

[12] Your conditions on release will be taken into account by the Parole Board and so they will be organised by them. You have already served quite a lengthy period of time in custody so it will be a matter of doing the maths and you will return to custody, but it will then depend on once the maths are done as to how long actually you will remain in prison after today.

B M Mackintosh District Court Judge