Costello v The Queen

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA10/2015
[2015] NZCA 505

BETWEEN	NICHOLAS ANTHONY COSTELLO Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA70/2015
BETWEEN	JONATHAN JAMES COSTELLO Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	13 October 2015
Court:	Ellen France P, Asher and Collins JJ
Counsel:	M R Bott for Appellant N A Costello M J Bullock for Appellant J J Costello M H Cooke for Respondent
Judgment:	27 October 2015 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeals against sentence are allowed.

BThe sentence of three years imprisonment on the charge of obtaining by deception imposed on Nicholas Costello is quashed. In its place a sentence of 18 months imprisonment is substituted, to be served concurrently. The sentences of three years imprisonment, all concurrent, imposed on the other charges remain.
CThe sentence of three years and four months imprisonment on the charge of obtaining by deception imposed on Jonathan Costello is quashed. In its place a sentence of 15 months imprisonment is substituted, to be served concurrently. The sentences of three years four months imprisonment, all concurrent, imposed on the other charges apart from attempted theft remain. The term of one months imprisonment on the attempted theft charge remains, to be served concurrently.

____________________________________________________________________

(Reasons to follow)

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeals against sentence were brought forth by Nicholas Anthony Costello and Jonathan James Costello, challenging the sentences imposed upon them by the High Court. The respondents in the matter were the Crown, represented by the Crown Law Office in Wellington. The primary issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentences imposed on the appellants were excessive or inappropriate in light of the circumstances of the case and the relevant sentencing principles.

The Court of Appeal considered the sentencing principles applicable to the cases, particularly focusing on the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentences given. They reviewed the High Court's reasoning and the evidence presented, assessing whether the original sentences adequately reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The Court took into account the appellants' backgrounds, the nature of the offences, and the need for the sentences to be commensurate with the crimes committed.

Upon review, the Court of Appeal found that the sentences for obtaining by deception were disproportionate and not in line with sentencing principles. They substituted the sentences with terms that they deemed more appropriate, ensuring the sentences were proportionate and reflected the principles of justice. The Court allowed the appeals in part, modifying the sentences while affirming the remainder of the sentences imposed by the High Court.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal involved the modification of the sentences for the charges of obtaining by deception for both appellants, reducing them to 18 months and 15 months respectively, to be served concurrently with other sentences. The remaining sentences were upheld, with the exception of one charge for Jonathan Costello, which remained unchanged.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established