Police v P HC Wanganui CRI-2008-483-33 [2009] NZHC 693 (10 June 2009)

Last Updated: 8 December 2015

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WANGANUI REGISTRY

_{CRI-2008-483-000033}

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Appellant

v

P

Respondent

Hearing: 1 April 2009

Counsel: H C Mallalieu for appellant

Respondent in person

Judgment: 10 June 2009

_{RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J}

[1] In terms recorded in my interim judgment of 7 April 2009, I allowed an appeal by the Police in this matter, finding the District Court Judge’s sentence to be manifestly inadequate. I deferred re-sentencing Mr P , pending receipt of further information. Mr P told me about a significant change in his circumstances since the time of the offending. Accordingly, I was concerned that this might be one of those rare cases in which a change in circumstances since the original sentencing would now make the imposition of the sentence that would have

_{been originally appropriate seriously unfair to Mr P .}

NEW ZEALAND POLICE V P HC WANG CRI-2008-483-000033 10 June 2009

[2] I now have the benefit of a pre-sentence report from the Department of Corrections. For the Police, Mr Mallalieu has indicated by further Memorandum since receipt and consideration of the pre-sentence report that the Police do not wish to make further submissions on the appropriate penalty, and are content for the matters to be dealt with on the papers.

[3] Mr P has not responded directly to my invitation that he add to the matters he put to me during the hearing of the appeal, but an indirect indication of his views is reflected in his attitude as recorded in the pre-sentence report.

[4] In general terms, the pre-sentence report confirms the very positive changes in Mr P ’s life as he had described them to me. In particular, his work and living arrangements accord with the understanding I gained. One measure of the extent of his commitment to learn from his offending is the fact that, having referred himself to relationship counselling in Wanganui, he took the initiative to continue with a course of counselling for a further eight sessions after relocating to Christchurch. Although the pre-sentence report expresses some concern about his lack of appreciation for the seriousness of his offending, he is assessed at being at a low risk of re-offending.

[5] The extent to which Mr P has transformed his life since the offending, and the fact that he appears to be sustaining positive attempts to renew a constructive relationship with his wife, confirm my view that the imposition now of the sentence that would have been appropriate on his original sentencing would be a serious injustice. His rehabilitation is to be encouraged.

[6] Mr P has indicated, via the pre-sentence report, that he would be prepared to pay a fine and apparently would treat a community based sentence as being unusually harsh for him as he works a full six day week, and needs Saturdays to rest and attend to all the incidences of life outside work.

[7] I indicated in my interim judgment that, on the basis of the relative seriousness of the offending, off-set by Mr P ’s early guilty plea and previous good record, a sentence in the range between three and five months’ imprisonment

would have been appropriate. He is deserving of an outcome which remains extremely lenient by reference to that benchmark, and which is only justified because of the unusually positive turn of events since the entry of his conviction. He should know that no such leniency could ever be expected again. The original sentence required him to come up for sentence if called upon within six months. He has certainly avoided any adverse consequences of what was in any event a manifestly inadequate sentence.

[8] In the circumstances that now confront me on re-sentencing, I consider the imposition of a fine of $400 to be sufficient, and that is the sentence I now substitute.

Dobson J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Wanganui for appellant

Mr V P , 4/56 Sherborne Street, St Albans, Christchurch