district court logo

New Zealand Police v McVicar [2020] NZDC 17572

Published 02 September 2020

Sentencing — COVID-19 — failure to comply with order under COVID-19 legislation — breach of managed isolation — intentional damage to property — exemption application — coronavirus — global pandemic — COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, s 11. The defendant appeared for sentence on one charge of failing to comply with an order under s 11 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act and one charge of intentional damage to property. He had returned from working in Australia at short notice as due to tragic family circumstances his wife was required to travel overseas. He had been tested before leaving and applied for an exemption from managed isolation, hoping to return home immediately in order to care for his children. The exemption was not granted. The defendant escaped from the isolation facility, entering a nearby liquor store and purchasing alcohol before returning back to the managed isolation facility. When subsequently arrested it was discovered he had also damaged a television in the facility. The maximum penalty for the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act offending is 6 months' imprisonment. In sentencing the defendant, the judge took into account the defendant's remorse and his apology for the offending, that he was of previous good character and that he took full responsibility for his actions. He had also spent six days on remand and suffered mental anguish at not being able to see his family in the circumstances. Culpability was determined to be a the lower end of the scale, with the defendant leaving for a short time without deviation or any significant contact with any members of the public while he was out of the facility. Counsel for the defendant urged the least restrictive outcome. The Judge noted that the offending needed to be marked by some sentence, highlighting the significant public interest in protecting the borders and the justifiable public concern when people left managed isolation facilities without permission. In relation to both charges the defendant was sentenced to forty hours' community work, noting that it was the minimum amount able to be imposed. The defendant had offered to pay reparation for the broken television, and was ordered to pay $1000 reparation immediately for the damage of the television. Judgment Date: 27 August 2020