Sarandovs v Police

[2014] NZHC 927

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-000311 [2014] NZHC 927

BETWEEN

ARTURS SARANDOVS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	5 May 2014
Appearances:	No appearance for Appellant J Collins for Respondent
Judgment:	6 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 May 2014 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High

Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Meredith Connell, Auckland

Copy to:            Appellant

ARTURS SARANDOVS v NZ POLICE [2014] NZHC 927 [6 May 2014]

[1]      On 25 September 2013 Arturs Sarandovs was sentenced to 100 hours of community work on two charges of using a document.  At the same time his brother Artjoms Sarandovs was sentenced to community work of 140 hours on three charges of using a document for pecuniary advantage under s 228(b) Crimes Act 1961.1   The brothers had been jointly charged in relation to the two charges Arturs pleaded guilty to.

[2]      Mr Arturs Sarandovs’ appeal against the entry of conviction was allocated a fixture on 5 May 2014 when he was last before the Court on 14 March 2014.  The matter was called today with his brother’s appeal.  There was no appearance of or for Arturs Sarandovs.

[3]      In the circumstances the appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution. However, having reviewed the file I am in any event satisfied that the direct and indirect consequences of Mr Sarandovs’ conviction in the present case cannot be said to be out of all proportion to the offending.

[4]      Arturs Sarandovs, like his brother, is Latvian.  His mother has been in New Zealand since 2003 and is a New Zealand citizen.   His father has been in New Zealand since 2006 and has applied for citizenship.

[5]      In arguing for a discharge without conviction in the District Court Mr Arturs Sarandovs submitted that he faced the risk of deportation if convicted2 and also that a conviction would complicate his ability to get work in the transport industry.

[6]      The Judge did not consider those potential consequences  as sufficient to outweigh the gravity of the offending. The application for discharge was declined.

[7]      The offending that Mr Arturs Sarandovs was involved in with his brother involved them going to separate appliance stores in Auckland on two occasions. There they swapped labels from less expensive coffee machine boxes onto more expensive coffee machine boxes.   They only paid the price for the less expensive

machines having deliberately distracted the sales assistants at the point of sale.

1      NZ Police v Sarandovs DC North Shore CRI-2011-044-001960, 25 September 2013.

2      Immigration Act 2009, s 161.

[8]      The offending was premeditated and planned.  It occurred on more than one occasion.   I consider it appropriately categorised as moderately serious offending. There are no mitigating factors for Mr Arturs Sarandovs.

[9]      While  Mr  Arturs  Sarandovs  may  be  at  risk  of  being  deported  as  a consequence  of  the  offending  that  ultimately  is  a  decision  for  the  Immigration Service to take.3     Deportation is by no means certain.   Mr Arturs Sarandovs has rights under the Immigration Act 2009 if the Immigration Service was to pursue deportation.

[10]     As to the consequences for Mr Arturs Sarandovs’ employment, if ultimately he were to lose his current employment and find it difficult to gain further employment in his chosen field of driving as a result of the conviction I do not consider that could be said to be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending in this case.

[11]     For those reasons the consequences of conviction can not be said to be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The appeal is dismissed.

Venning J

3      Zhang v Ministry of Economic Development HC Auckland CRI-2010-404-453. 17 March 2011.