IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE
CRI-2021-412-51
[2022] NZHC 398
UNDER the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 IN THE MATTER
of an appeal against sentence
BETWEEN
RYAN KARL TAPSELL
Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Hearing: 28 February 2022 Counsel:
D Henderson for Appellant R P Bates for Respondent
Judgment:
28 February 2022
JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J
(result)
This judgment was delivered by me on 9 March 2022 at 9.30 am
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:
TAPSELL v R [2022] NZHC 398 [28 February 2022]
[1] Ryan Tapsell was sentenced in the District Court on a charge of assault,1 one charge of assault on a person in a family relationship,2 and a representative charge of contravening a protection order.3 He pleaded guilty to those charges, while the Police withdrew a number of other charges.
[2] On 7 December 2021 Judge M B T Turner sentenced Mr Tapsell to two years four months’ imprisonment on the charge of contravening a protection order, with concurrent sentences of seven months’ imprisonment for assault in a family relationship and three months’ imprisonment for assault (the sentencing).4 A protection order was also made against Mr Tapsell.5
[3] Mr Tapsell appeals the sentence on the basis the Judge erred by giving insignificant discounts for mitigating factors, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. He also appealed the imposition of the protection order.
Outcome
[4]Having heard submissions, I dismiss the appeal. My reasons will follow.
Osborne J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Dunedin
Copy to: D Henderson, Barrister, Dunedin
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 196: maximum penalty one years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 194A: maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
3 Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(a), 9 and 112(1)(a): maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
4 R v Tapsell [2021] NZDC 24189.
5 Under Sentencing Act 2002, s 123B.
- AGLC
- Tapsell v The the Queen [2022] NZHC 398
- Case
- [2022] NZHC 398
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues were whether the sentencing judge erred in giving insignificant discounts for mitigating factors and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal also questioned the imposition of the protection order. The judge considered submissions from both parties and found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the protection order was appropriate.
In dismissing the appeal, the judge found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the protection order was appropriate. The mitigating factors were considered but did not warrant a significantly lower sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence and protection order stood.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.