Troy Brophy’s criminal history is mainly for dishonesty and traffic offending but also includes multiple assaults and other family violence, escapes from custody and breaches of sentence conditions.
When he was arrested last December at his father’s Long Bay home in Auckland, from which he had been trespassed, he resisted police, spat at police officers, spat again inside their car, and then removed a spit hood that had been put on him.
He was eventually taken away in a custody van.
He was turned down for home detention after a probation officer’s “unusually negative” pre-sentence report, according to court documents.
The report recommended a short prison sentence on account of his unwillingness and lack of motivation to engage in rehabilitation and his “limited insight and responsibility for his offending”.
Judge Andrea Manuel said there were “difficulties” with home detention, which Brophy wanted to serve at his mother’s home in the South Island - where she had moved to from Auckland to get away from him.
She said Brophy had been involved in multiple instances of family violence, including against his mother, extending to convictions for criminal damage as recently as February 2021.
She assessed neither of Brophy’s parents’ homes was suitable for home detention.
Brophy appealed the prison term to the High Court, arguing that he should be allowed to serve home detention instead.
In the High Court, his counsel acknowledged Brophy’s violent history toward his mother, which had led to her move “to keep herself safe and to put distance between them”.
However, Brophy’s mother had said “time is a great healer”, and had renovated her garage to provide accommodation for him, as her way of reaching out in a motherly way, and to open the family unit up again.
Brophy had stayed with her without incident for brief periods while on electronically monitored bail.
In preference to continued imprisonment, Brophy also had employment prospects in Christchurch, his counsel told the court.
However, High Court Justice Pheroze Jagose said that Judge Manuel’s decision to decline home detention did not result in a sentence that was “manifestly excessive”, which would have allowed a successful appeal.
“Rather, it was an assessment plainly open to the Judge on the information before her of Mr Brophy’s family violence and non-compliance history,” Justice Jagose said.
He also said that electronically monitored confinement was a source of “compliance stress” which increased the risk of family violence at the address where home detention is being served.
“[The mother’s} address is not a suitable address for Mr Brophy’s electronically monitored confinement,” Justice Jagose said.
“The Judge was right to sentence him to a short term of imprisonment absent a suitable residence for a home detention.”
By Ric Stevens
Open Justice reporter
