Phillip Edward Crooks v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 74/2005
[2006] NZSC 9
PHILLIP EDWARD CROOKS
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ
Counsel:J H M Eaton for Appellant

A Markham for Crown

Judgment:20 March 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
REASONS
[1]       Mr Crooks seeks leave to appeal against the dismissal by the Court of Appeal of his appeal against a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment imposed after he pleaded guilty to charges of inducing an indecent act and indecent assault relating to a 14 year old girl. The appellant was aged 32 at the time of the offending.
[2]       The proposed ground of appeal is that a miscarriage of justice has occurred because both the sentencing Court and the Court of Appeal proceeded on the basis of a summary of facts which was in error and which should have been disregarded. We accept that this did occur. Clearly it should not have done. A defendant is entitled to be sentenced and have any appeal heard on a correct factual basis.
[3]       When the facts are correctly understood they reveal conduct on the part of the appellant which was always likely to lead to a sentence of at least 16 months’ imprisonment. The variations between the facts admitted and those derived by the Judge from the summary of facts were relatively minor. There was ample material before the judge by consent at sentencing by way of email and text messages passing between the appellant and the complainant to justify the interpretation the Judge placed on the offending. It is therefore clear that there has not been a miscarriage of justice.
[4]       The application is dismissed.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Phillip Edward Crooks sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal against a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea to charges of inducing an indecent act and indecent assault relating to a 14-year-old girl. Crooks, aged 32 at the time of the offending, challenged the sentence on the basis that both the sentencing court and the Court of Appeal had proceeded on a summary of facts that was erroneous and should have been disregarded. The Supreme Court acknowledged that a miscarriage of justice had indeed occurred because the courts had relied on an incorrect summary of facts.

The court examined whether this error resulted in a miscarriage of justice. It found that when the facts were correctly understood, they revealed conduct by Crooks that would likely result in a sentence of at least 16 months’ imprisonment. The differences between the admitted facts and those derived by the judge from the summary of facts were relatively minor. There was ample material, including emails and text messages exchanged between Crooks and the complainant, which supported the judge’s interpretation of the offending. Consequently, the court concluded that no miscarriage of justice had occurred as the correctly understood facts still warranted the same sentence.

Given that the correct understanding of the facts did not alter the outcome of the sentence, the Supreme Court dismissed Crooks' application for leave to appeal. The error in the summary of facts did not impact the fundamental fairness or appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established