Betteridge v The Queen

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA338/2019
[2019] NZCA 463

BETWEEN	KYRA BETTERIDGE Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	25 September 2019
Court:	Clifford, Lang and Ellis JJ
Counsel:	A J Maxwell-Scott for Appellant B D Tantrum and D R Green for Respondent
Judgment:	27 September 2019 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is allowed.

____________________________________________________________________

[Reasons to follow]

The appeal against sentence is allowed. Ms Betteridge’s sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment is quashed and substituted by a sentence of eight months’ home detention, subject to standard conditions, to be served at the address specified in the Department of Corrections’ Provision of Advice to Courts memorandum dated 24 June 2019 and subject also to the following special conditions:
(a)To attend an assessment for alcohol and drug counselling as directed by a Probation Officer and to attend and complete any counselling, treatment or programme as recommended by the assessment as directed by and to the satisfaction of a Probation Officer.
(b)To attend a psychological assessment with a departmental psychologist as directed by a Probation Officer and complete any treatment and/or counselling as recommended by the assessment to the satisfaction of a Probation Officer.
(c)Not to communicate in any way or associate with Simon Walker, Christopher Smith, Leon Wilson, Dylan Boyle, Grant Wickens or James Green without the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of Kyra Betteridge versus The Queen was heard on 25 September 2019, with the judgment delivered on 27 September 2019 by Clifford, Lang, and Ellis JJ. This case involved an appeal against the sentence handed down to Ms Betteridge by a lower court. The primary issue before the Court of Appeal was the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on Ms Betteridge for her criminal activities. Specifically, the Court needed to determine whether the original sentence of 21 months' imprisonment was commensurate with the nature and circumstances of the crime committed.

The Court of Appeal found that the original sentence was excessive and disproportionate to the crime. In their judgment, the Court acknowledged that Ms Betteridge's involvement in the criminal activity was significant; however, they considered several factors, including her background, the potential for rehabilitation, and the principles of sentencing proportionality. The Court held that a sentence of eight months' home detention, subject to specific conditions, would be more appropriate. These conditions included mandatory participation in alcohol and drug counselling, a psychological assessment, and restrictions on communication with certain individuals.

The Court of Appeal quashed the original sentence of 21 months' imprisonment and substituted it with a sentence of eight months' home detention. The substituted sentence includes several special conditions aimed at addressing Ms Betteridge's specific needs and risks, ensuring public safety, and facilitating her rehabilitation. The final orders mandate that Ms Betteridge comply with the outlined conditions as directed by a Probation Officer.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established