Latham v Police HC Christchurch CRI-2011-409-000096 [2011] NZHC 1880 (20 October 2011)

Last Updated: 30 January 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

_{CRI-2011-409-000096}

MICHAEL SEAN LATHAM

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 20 October 2011

Appearances: M Starling for Appellant

C J Boshier for Respondent

Judgment: 20 October 2011

_{ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHISHOLM J}

[1] This is an appeal against a total sentence of 10 months imprisonment for receiving three items: a TV set, a laptop and a motor vehicle. The appellant received the motor vehicle while he was on bail for receiving the TV and laptop. He had pleaded guilty to the receiving of the motor vehicle. Originally he had been charged with the burglary of the TV and laptop and was found guilty at trial of receiving those items.

[2] Mr Latham is 21 years of age. He has 16 previous convictions, including two for burglary and some other less serious offences involving dishonesty. Breaches of an earlier sentence of home detention resulted in that sentence being cancelled. The

_{probation officer’s report was particularly unfavourable.}

LATHAM V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC CHCH CRI-2011-409-000096 20 October 2011

[3] When sentencing the appellant the Judge ruled out home detention as an option. He imposed a sentence of four months for receiving the TV and laptop and a cumulative sentence of six months for receiving the motor vehicle.

[4] Mr Starling did not take issue with the sentence of four months imprisonment in relation to the TV and laptop. However, he claimed the sentence of six months in relation to the motor vehicle gave rise to an overall sentence that was manifestly excessive. This reflected: the real factual situation had not been properly conveyed to the Judge; in fact the motor vehicle had been abandoned in the appellant’s street and the appellant had simply contacted wreckers who took the car away and paid the appellant $650; thus the appellant’s culpability was over stated; this was akin to theft by finding; the value of the car was low; and in the end result the overall sentence should have been in the region of six months rather than 10 months.

[5] Ms Boshier submitted that once the offending is looked at on a totality basis it could not be said that the overall sentence of 10 months was outside the range available to the Judge.

[6] While I have some reservations about the split between the two sentences making up the total of 10 months, it is the end result that is important. Despite Mr Starling’s careful submissions I have not been persuaded that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive. Although the circumstances surrounding the motor vehicle were somewhat unusual and the precise nature of the offending may not have been clearly conveyed to the Judge, a number of factors count against this appeal: the appellant’s previous offending, which includes burglary; his extremely unfavourable probation report; offending while on bail; and, given those factors, the justification for a deterrent sentence.

[7] The appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:

Michael Starling, PO Box 13060, Armagh, Christchurch 8141

Raymond Donnelly, P O Box 533, Christchurch