Planning of burglaries overstated; jail time cut
A DUNEDIN recidivist burglar has had his jail term reduced after the sentencing judge overstated the amount of planning that went into his crime spree.
Brent Douglas Cleghorn (37) was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment when he appeared in the Dunedin District Court in front of Judge Kevin Phillips in July.
But Justice Rachel Dunningham ruled that penalty was manifestly excessive, and replaced it with a term of three and ahalf years.
Cleghorn repeatedly struck during May last year, leading to four convictions for burglary, two for trespass and one for theft.
Judge Phillips deemed his most serious offence to be the burglary of a Forbury Rd home on May 7, 2017 in which the defendant smashed a window to get in.
He grabbed two bottles of spirits before venturing upstairs to the victim’s bedroom where he stole $10,000 in jewellery.
The elderly woman, who suffered from Parkinson’s disease, had been given the valuable items by her late husband of 60 years, the court heard.
Cleghorn used a similar technique to break into other homes in the same area.
He stole Lotto tickets, pre scription medication, games consoles, a DVD player, an electronic tablet and a camcorder.
Cleghorn also took $380 in cash from behind the counter of a Hillside Rd business and visited The Warehouse when he was barred from doing so.
Defence counsel Brendan Stephenson said Judge Phillips made ‘‘unreasonable inferen ces’’ from the summary of facts about the level of planning of the burglaries and the overall penalty was out of step with similar appealcourt decisions.
Crown prosecutor Craig Power disagreed.
He underscored Cleghorn’s 10 previous convictions for burglary between 1998 and 2011, as well as two for unlawfully being in a building.
Justice Dunningham sided with the appellant.
‘‘Having read the summary of facts I accept that the judge has overstated the level of premeditation and preplanning and this in all likelihood influenced the starting point he adopted,’’ she said.
‘‘There was no evidence to support the bald statement that ‘the burglaries were all planned, I think they were all premeditated, I think all the properties were selected’, nor is there evidence to support that he had ‘knowledge of where the jewellery was’.’’