NZLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of New Zealand Decisions

You are here:  NZLII >> Databases >> High Court of New Zealand Decisions >> 2016 >> [2016] NZHC 3051

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

R v Christian [2016] NZHC 3051 (14 December 2016)

Last Updated: 19 December 2016


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY




CRI-2015-063-731 [2016] NZHC 3051

THE QUEEN



v



JORDAN ALEXANDER CHRISTIAN



Charge:
Plea:
Theft
Not Guilty
Counsel:
C H Macklin for Crown
M A Simpkins for Defendant
Sentenced:
14 December 2016




SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

























Solicitors:

Gordon Pilditch (Rotorua) for Crown

Lance Lawson (Rotorua) for Defendant



R v CHRISTIAN [2016] NZHC 3051 [14 December 2016]

[1] Mr Christian, you are appearing today for sentencing on the conviction of theft of the Isuzu Elf motor vehicle.

[2] As you are well aware, the jury found you guilty of that charge and I entered a conviction. Subsequently, I wondered whether that was an appropriate conviction because you were charged as a s 66(1) party and it was not alleged that you had yourself physically stolen the Isuzu Elf. What was alleged was that Mr McDonnell had been in possession of the motor vehicle and that you were a party to its theft by Mr McDonnell, or by one of the others in the group. The principal evidence of that was that you were found in possession of the Elf.

[3] Of course, the jury acquitted all of your other co-defendants on the charge of theft of the Elf and so my view is that the conviction that should have been entered was on a charge of receiving the Elf knowing it to be stolen property.

[4] I do not have the power to change the conviction. The jury found you guilty of the charge, I entered a conviction, and now only the Court of Appeal can deal with the situation, if that is what you decide to do. What I will do, though, is sentence you on the basis that you received the Elf.

[5] My view is that, given the year-long period that you were on restrictive bail conditions and given the fact that you were remanded in custody for nearly seven weeks over the course of the trial, it would not be in the interests of justice to add any further penalty. Accordingly, I discharge you now without further penalty so that

in legal terms you have been convicted and discharged. You may stand down.









Brewer J


NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2016/3051.html