A man who terrorised his former boss over a wage dispute has failed to have a jail term converted to home detention.
Byron William Howard was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and a four-year driving ban when he appeared before the Dunedin District Court in August.
He argued before the High Court at Dunedin that the penalty was "manifestly excessive" and though the disqualification was cut to two years, Justice Rachel Dunningham refused to release the man into the community.
Howard worked at the victim’s Tapanui business until mid-2016, when financial woes resulted in the business collapsing.
The employer advised the defendant to look for another job and said at that stage, he did not believe there was any ill-feeling between them.
The employer and his family then moved into his mother-in-law’s crib in Cromwell, while Howard relocated to Milton.
On the evening of July 13 last year, the defendant drove to Central Otago and demanded money he believed was owed to him by the employer.
When his former boss retreated inside the house, Howard retrieved a large crowbar from his vehicle and began smashing the windows of the property.
Despite being barefoot, the victim ran across the broken shards to film Howard with his phone as he drove away.
The defendant intentionally veered towards the man — at 30kmh — hitting and throwing him on to the bonnet.
He slid to the ground and Howard drove off.
At appeal, defence counsel Elizabeth Bulger argued Judge Michael Crosbie had failed to impose the least restrictive sentence in the circumstances, which was required by law.
She said the judge incorrectly stated Howard was on bail for other offences when the incident happened.
While Justice Dunningham accepted that, she said there was no evidence the District Court judge factored it heavily into his sentencing.
"While [Howard] had virtually no criminal history, and the pre-sentence report recommended home detention, I cannot conclude that the judge was in error in exercising his discretion to impose a prison sentence," she said.
"His decision was thorough and carefully canvassed the relevant issues."
The reparation order for $4352 remained in place.
