King v Police [2012] NZHC 838 (27 April 2012)

Last Updated: 13 September 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2012-412-9 [2012] NZHC 838

RANGI RICHARD KING

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 27 April 2012

Counsel: Appellant in person

CER Power for Crown

Judgment: 27 April 2012

_{ORAL JUDGMENT OF MACKENZIE J}

[1] This is an appeal against sentence. Mr King was sentenced in the District Court at Dunedin on 26 January 2012 on six charges: three counts of receiving; one count of theft from a dwelling under $500; two counts of burglary; and one count of supplying cannabis. He was sentenced to a term of two years and three months imprisonment. He appeals against that sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.

[2] Mr King has been brought before the Court today so that his appeal can be heard as he is unrepresented. He confirms that he has seen the submissions of

_{counsel for the respondent and has had an opportunity to make submissions to me.}

KING V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC DUN CRI-2012-412-9 [27 April 2012]

[3] The facts are that the charges arose from a series of burglaries of a number of student flats in North Dunedin. These occurred over a period between the end of June and beginning of October 2011. The burglary charges involved entering the properties, generally at night when occupants were present and asleep, and a number of items of property were taken. The property was located when a search warrant was executed at the appellant’s address.

[4] In sentencing the Judge took the two burglaries as the lead offences. He fixed a starting point for those offences of two years. He uplifted that starting point by a total of one year to reflect personal aggravating factors. First, the fact that the offending had occurred while the appellant was subject to release conditions, and, second, to reflect the appellant’s previous convictions. An uplift of six months for each of those factors was imposed. That would have led to a sentence of three years but allowing for the guilty plea for a credit of 25 per cent, or nine months, was allowed, the final sentence was the two years three months which I have mentioned.

[5] I am satisfied, having carefully reviewed all of the material, that the starting point was well within the range which was available to the sentencing Judge. As the Judge noted, these were particularly invasive burglaries in that they involved entry to the properties at night when occupants were asleep and they were particularly upsetting. So, in those circumstances, I consider that the starting point of two years was fully justified.

[6] The uplift of six months for the fact that the offending occurred while subject to release conditions was also well within the range available and the addition of six months to reflect the appellant’s previous convictions was also justified. There is a considerable history of prior offending. As the Judge noted there are previous convictions for dishonesty including convictions for burglary in 2008 and in 2007. There were also many other convictions but the Judge noted that none of those were immediately relevant to his purpose in sentencing.

[7] The discount of 25 per cent for the guilty plea was appropriate.

[8] Having carefully reviewed the matter I agree with the Judge that there were no other mitigating personal circumstances which required a reduction in the sentence. It is clear that the appellant has a number of personal difficulties and he has been attending psychological treatment. He also has issues with alcohol. The Judge specifically noted in his sentencing remarks that it was important that the appellant be in a position where following sentence he would be subject to the parole board reviewing his case and that he expressed the view that the psychological work should continue. I agree with, and endorse, that assessment by the Judge.

[9] In his submissions to me today Mr King has indicated that the appeal was filed at a time when he was under stress as a result of having been sentenced and that is understandable. I think that on more mature reflection he accepts the conclusion which I have reached that the sentence was within the available range and was not manifestly excessive nor is there any error of principle apparent in the Judge’s approach.

[10] For these reasons that appeal is dismissed.

“A D MacKenzie J”

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Dunedin

Copy to: Appellant